Thông tin tài liệu
FACEBOOK
AND
YOUTH@SG:
ONLINE
PRIVACY
AND
PERSONAL
INFORMATION
DISCLOSURE
OU
MEIMIN
NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY
OF
SINGAPORE
2010
FACEBOOK
AND
YOUTH@SG:
ONLINE
PRIVACY
AND
PERSONAL
INFORMATION
DISCLOSURE
OU
MEIMIN
(B.
Soc
Sc,
Hons.,
Minor
in
Technopreneurship),
NUS
A
THESIS
SUBMITTED
FOR
THE
DEGREE
OF
MASTERS
IN
ARTS
COMMUNICATIONS
AND
NEW
MEDIA
PROGRAMME
NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY
OF
SINGAPORE
2010
2
Acknowledgements
It
is
with
a
humble
heart
that
I
thank
the
many
people
in
my
life
who
made
this
thesis
possible.
Many
people
have
been
part
of
my
path
in
graduate
school,
as
friends,
teachers,
mentors
and
supporters.
Dr
Lim
Sun
Sun
has
played
an
instrumental
role
in
my
thesis
endeavor.
I
have
learnt
a
lot
from
her
succinct
method
of
instruction.
She
has
allowed
me
to
learn
independently
as
a
budding
scholar
in
communications.
Her
expert
grasp
of
existing
concepts
benefitted
me
as
I
experimented
with
different
areas
before
deciding
on
social
media,
privacy
and
youths.
Other
mentors
in
the
Communications
and
New
Media
programme
include
Dr
“Millie”
Rivera,
who
convinced
me
to
return
to
pursue
my
graduate
degree.
Her
mentorship
and
advice
have
been
invaluable.
My
gratitude
is
also
extended
to
Dr
Cho
HiChang,
whose
support
and
patience
allowed
me
to
learn
a
lot
under
his
tutelage.
I
am
thankful
to
have
completed
this
graduate
course
with
the
support
from
the
programme
and
I
have
brought
away
from
my
graduate
education
not
just
technical
and
theoretical
knowledge,
but
precious
life
lessons
as
well.
My
gratitude
also
extends
to
my
fellow
colleagues
and
graduate
students:
Ms
Gene
Van
Heerden
and
Mr
Gui
Kai
Chong,
esteemed
colleagues
whom
I
have
worked
with
and
developed
respect
for;
office-‐mates
Aaron,
Aru,
Charlene,
Li
Ting,
Jodie,
Joshua,
Elmie,
Siti
and
Yoke
Hian,
who
brighten
up
my
days
at
work;
and
fellow
grad
students
Carol,
Ganga,
Wang
Rong
and
Cathy,
who
make
graduate
classes
both
fun
and
intellectually
stimulating.
The
CNM
administrative
staff
Retna
and
Adeline
have
provided
support
throughout
my
graduate
education
and
deserve
acknowledgement
for
their
daily
efforts.
I
am
grateful
to
have
had
the
ever-‐present
support
of
family
and
friends
while
completing
graduate
school.
To
Clare,
Shuting,
Alice,
Yanni
and
Li
Ting,
who
lent
a
listening
ear
to
my
ideas
and
volunteered
their
help
for
my
thesis
data
collection,
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
help.
To
my
“Fab
Five”,
Ange,
Viv,
Steph
and
JW,
our
meet
ups
provided
me
with
the
respite
needed
to
continue
with
my
writing
and
grading.
Your
boundless
hospitality
and
homemade
hearty
fare
never
fail
to
recharge
me
to
handle
the
challenges
that
came
along.
Special
mentions
include
Siti,
Clare
and
Yanni,
who
have
gone
out
of
their
way
to
help
me
make
completing
this
thesis
a
reality.
Words
alone
cannot
express
my
gratitude
for
your
help,
support
and
encouragement
throughout
this
process.
Last
but
not
least,
to
my
parents,
David
Ow
and
Serena
Tan,
and
to
my
grandparents,
I
dedicate
this
thesis
to
you,
for
all
your
prayers,
unwavering
love
and
support
through
my
all
nighters
and
balancing
of
work
and
studies.
3
Table
of
Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 6
List
of
Tables......................................................................................................................................... 7
List
of
Figures....................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter
1:
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9
1.1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.2
Background
information:
What
is
a
Social
Network
Site
(SNS)? .........................15
1.3
Basic
features
of
SNS ...............................................................................................................17
1.4
World-‐wide
SNS
phenomenon
and
the
rise
of
Facebook ....................................... 19
1.5
Background
of
Facebook .......................................................................................................19
1.5.1
Facebook
features ................................................................................................................ 21
1.5.2
What
sets
Facebook
apart
from
other
SNS................................................................ 22
1.6
Popular
online
social
networking
websites
in
Singapore .......................................22
Chapter
2:
Literature
review
on
youths
and
their
online
culture .............................. 23
2.1
Youths ........................................................................................................................................... 23
2.1.1
The
idea
of
a
generation.................................................................................................... 23
2.1.2
Identity
formation
and
negotiation.............................................................................. 25
2.2
Concerns
about
youth
online.............................................................................................. 29
2.2.1
Online
sexual
solicitations................................................................................................ 31
2.2.2
Internet
and
health-‐related
problems......................................................................... 32
Chapter
3:
Literature
review
on
SNS ...................................................................................... 33
3.1
SNS
research
to
date............................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1
Virtual
communities
and
the
network
effect............................................................ 36
3.1.2
Community,
culture
and
civic
engagement............................................................... 36
3.1.3
Social
Capital .......................................................................................................................... 37
3.1.4
Identity,
self-‐presentation
and
contextualizing
in
SNS........................................ 38
3.2
Framing
policy-‐relevant
research .................................................................................... 42
Chapter
4:
Social
network
theory,
privacy
and
information
disclosure.................. 44
4.1
Concept
of
privacy ....................................................................................................................44
4.2
Social
network
theory
and
privacy ...................................................................................47
4.3
Online
information
disclosure
and
privacy ...................................................................48
4.4
SNS
and
privacy .........................................................................................................................51
4.4.1
SNS
privacy
policies
and
settings ............................................................ 53
4.5
Parents
and
online
privacy ...................................................................................................54
4.6
Youths
and
online
privacy.....................................................................................................55
4.7
Research
Questions..................................................................................................................56
Chapter
5:
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 57
5.1
Selecting
research
methods..................................................................................................57
5.1.3
Content
analysis.................................................................................................................... 61
4
5.1.4
Surveys...................................................................................................................................... 61
5.1.5
Benefits
of
mixed
methods
research............................................................................ 63
5.2
Research
Design ....................................................................................................................... 64
5.2.1
Content
analysis.................................................................................................................... 66
5.2.1.1
Coding
frame ...................................................................................................................... 66
5.2.1.2
Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 68
5.2.2
Surveys...................................................................................................................................... 74
5.2.2.1
Survey
format
and
questions....................................................................................... 75
5.2.2.2
Dimensions.......................................................................................................................... 79
5.2.2.3
Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 83
5.3
Challenges
encountered
in
the
course
of
data
collection ....................................... 87
5.3.1
Challenges
faced
at
the
conceptualization
phase ................................................... 87
5.3.2
Challenges
faced
at
the
implementation
phase....................................................... 87
Chapter
6:
Findings
and
discussion
–
Content
analysis.................................................. 88
6.1
Overview
of
chapter................................................................................................................ 88
6.2
Representativeness
of
student
profiles
and
data
storage ...................................... 89
6.3
Addressing
the
research
questions.................................................................................. 90
6.3
Observations
from
the
content
analysis
of
Singaporean
youths’
Facebook
profiles ................................................................................................................................................. 99
6.3.1
Number
of
friends
on
Facebook..................................................................................... 99
6.3.2
Youths’
different
approaches
to
Facebook
information
privacy ...................100
6.4
Contribution
to
existing
literature .................................................................................103
6.4.1
SNS
and
youths....................................................................................................................103
6.4.2
Level
of
information
disclosure
in
SNS.....................................................................104
6.4.3
Virtual
communities
and
network
effect .................................................................105
6.4.4
Identity,
self-‐presentation
and
contextualizing
in
SNS......................................106
6.4.5
Privacy,
surveillance
and
legal
issues........................................................................108
6.5
Laying
groundwork
for
online
surveys ........................................................................108
Chapter
7:
Findings
and
discussion
–
Online
Surveys...................................................109
7.1
Overview
of
chapter..............................................................................................................109
7.2
Representativeness
of
survey
participants
and
data
storage.............................110
7.4
Discussion
from
findings
of
online
surveys................................................................130
7.4.1
Youths’
self-‐assessment
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards.............................130
7.5
Contribution
of
study
to
current
literature ................................................................135
7.5.1
Negotiation
and
management
of
identity
in
Facebook......................................135
7.5.2
Parental
concerns
and
Facebook.................................................................................135
7.5.3
Policy
and
Facebook..........................................................................................................137
Chapter
8:
Conclusion..................................................................................................................139
8.1
Summary
of
findings.............................................................................................................139
8.2
Limitations
of
study ..............................................................................................................141
8.3
Implications
of
study
on
policy-‐making.......................................................................142
8.4
Suggestions
for
future
research.......................................................................................144
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................146
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................165
5
Summary
With
the
proliferation
of
social
networking
sites
(SNS)
such
as
Facebook
gaining
a
foothold
in
Singaporean
youths’
daily
lives,
Singaporean
parents
and
educators
are
seeking
to
better
understand
the
different
facets
of
social
interaction
in
SNS.
In
particular,
the
issue
of
youths’
safety
online
has
been
of
interest
to
parents,
policymakers
and
educators.
For
the
purpose
of
this
study,
research
questions
revolve
around
two
pertinent
issues
of
concern
regarding
Singaporean
youths’
usage
of
Facebook,
currently
Singapore’s
most
popular
SNS.
I
seek
to
understand:
i)
whether
youths
are
utilizing
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards,
and
ii) the
extent
and
nature
of
personal
information
revealed
in
their
Facebook
profiles.
Understanding
youths’
privacy
perceptions
based
on
their
privacy
safeguards
and
level
of
personal
information
in
Facebook,
as
well
as
Singaporean
parents’
online
privacy
perceptions
and
knowledge
of
their
children’s
levels
of
information
disclosure
in
Facebook
can
aid
in
ascertaining
if
there
exists
a
difference
in
attitudes
towards
online
privacy
and
personal
information
disclosure
between
Singaporean
parents
and
youths.
Ascertaining
this
will
in
turn
aid
in
bridging
the
differences
in
perceptions,
if
any,
between
parents
and
their
teenage
children,
thus
facilitating
discussions
when
parents
guide
their
teenage
children
in
online
safety.
Results
from
the
study
will
also
provide
valuable
input
when
formulating
policies
and
planning
online
safety
campaigns.
Results
from
the
two-‐pronged
approach
of
content
analysis
and
online
surveys
indicate
that
Singaporean
parents
are
generally
aware
of
their
teenage
children’s
habits
and
level
of
personal
information
disclosure.
Both
Singaporean
parents
and
youths
are
privacy-‐oriented,
but
youths
are
willing
to
compromise
some
privacy
in
order
to
allow
their
peers
understand
them
better
via
Facebook.
Youths
are
aware
and
do
utilize
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards
but
there
exists
a
disparity
between
what
they
think
they
know
and
what
they
actually
know
about
the
privacy
settings
which
should
be
noted.
In
terms
of
the
extent
and
level
of
personal
information
disclosure,
Singaporean
youths
reveal
more
personal
information
in
their
public
profiles
than
private
profiles.
However,
they
are
also
more
discerning
about
the
types
of
personal
information
they
reveal
in
Facebook
and
utilize
creative
methods
to
mask
their
personal
information.
My
findings
indicate
that
there
is
no
great
disparity
in
privacy
perceptions
between
Singaporean
parents
and
youths
and
that
there
is
already
ongoing
dialogue
between
parents
and
youths
online
safety.
This
creates
a
conducive
environment
for
parents
to
discuss
with
their
youths
about
online
safety
without
intruding
into
youths’
practices
of
identity
management
in
Facebook.
6
List
of
Tables
a) Table
6.1:
Types
of
profiles
and
personal
information
revealed
b) Table
6.2:
Identifiers
in
youths’
Facebook
profiles
c) Table
7.1:
Types
of
information
Singaporean
youths
post
in
Facebook
d) Table
7.2:
Privacy
values
attached
to
types
of
personal
information
in
Facebook
e) Table
7.3:
Veracity
of
personal
information
that
Singaporean
youths
post
on
Facebook
f) Table
7.4:
Topics
about
online
safety
that
parents
discuss
with
their
teenagers
g) Table
7.5:
Steps
taken
by
parents
to
enhance
their
teenagers’
online
safety
h) Table
7.6:
Parents’
impression
of
their
teenage
children’s
Facebook
usage
i) Table
7.7:
Youths’
Facebook
usage
j) Table
7.8:
Types
of
information
parents
think
their
teenage
children
post
in
Facebook
k) Table
7.9:
Parents’
most
frequent
sources
of
information
for
online
safety
l) Table
7.10:
Parental
concerns
about
teenage
children’s
online
social
interactions
m) Table
7.11:
Parents’
perceptions
of
how
Facebook
aids
in
teenage
children’s
development
n) Table
7.12:
Privacy
perceptions
of
youths
o) Table
7.13:
Privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths
–
Independent-‐samples
t
Test
p) Table
7.14:
Privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths
–
Independent-‐samples
t
Test
q) Table
7.15:
Privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths
–
Independent-‐samples
t
Test
r) Table
7.16:
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
Westin
privacy
segmentation
dimensions
s) Table
7.17:
Reliability
statistics
for
Westin
privacy
segmentation
dimensions
–
youths
t) Table
7.18:
Percentage
of
youths
who
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds
u) Table
7.19:
Percentage
of
parents
who
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds
v) Table
7.20:
Comparison
of
privacy
perception
means
across
gender
for
parents
and
youths
w) Table
7.21:
Percentage
of
youths
who
are
aware
of
the
various
Facebook
privacy
safeguards
x) Table
7.22:
Percentage
of
youths
who
utilize
the
various
Facebook
privacy
safeguards
7
List
of
Figures
a) Fig
5.1:
Facebook’s
search
engine
b) Fig
5.2:
Friends
list
of
a
student
c) Fig
5.3:
A
Secondary
school’s
Facebook
page
d) Fig
5.4:
Example
of
posts
in
discussion
boards
to
get
students
for
online
survey
e) Fig
6.1:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
public
profile
f) Fig.
6.2:
A
Facebook
profile
with
conflicting
personal
information
g) Fig.
6.3:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
private
profile
with
minimal
personal
information
h) Fig.
6.4:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
private
profile
revealing
more
personal
information
i) Fig.
6.5:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
private
profile
under
a
moniker
j) Fig.
6.6:
An
example
of
a
youth’s
Facebook
profile
under
a
moniker-‐real
name
k) Fig.
6.7:
Another
example
of
a
youth
and
her
friends
who
adopt
moniker-‐real
names
l) Fig.
6.8:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
profile
under
a
colloquial
moniker,
“Gabie
Suaku”
m) Fig.
6.9:
A
Singaporean
youth’s
Facebook
profile
photo
displaying
her
social
and
school
affiliations
n) Fig
6.10:
A
Singaporean
youth’s
Facebook
profile
photo
emphasizing
on
achievements
in
school
o) Fig
6:11:
Singaporean
youth’s
profile
where
youth
has
parents
as
friends
on
Facebook
p) Fig
6.12:
A
profile
photo
of
a
group
that
belongs
to
the
same
demographic
group
q) Fig
6.13:
A
profile
photo
of
two
groups
of
Singaporean
youths
that
belong
to
the
same
demographic
group
8
Chapter
1:
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
With
the
advent
of
Web
2.0,
we
see
a
tremendous
increase
in
social
media
usage.
The
rise
of
blogs
and
other
user-‐generated
content
outlets
such
as
Youtube
for
videos
and
Flickr
for
photos
have
been
gaining
popularity
not
only
because
they
allow
for
users
to
create
and
upload
their
work,
but
also
because
they
provide
the
option
to
share
their
content
with
others.
This
has
contributed
to
the
internet
being
used
in
an
increasingly
social
manner.
Interactivity
and
inter-‐
connectedness
are
synonymous
with
the
most
popular
activities
online
today.
One
of
the
most
frequently
used
social
media
these
days
is
social
networking
sites
(SNS).
While
the
term
used
to
include
blogs,
video
and
photo
sharing
websites;
SNS
today
usually
refer
to
websites
such
as
MySpace,
Multiply,
Friendster,
Orkut,
LinkedIn
and
Facebook.
Such
websites
have
elements
of
blogging,
video
and
photo
sharing
embedded
within
them
though
their
main
feature
is
to
explicate
one’s
social
network
and
displaying
links
between
users.
While
terms
such
as
“poking”,
“throwing
sheep”
and
having
virtual
food
fights
might
have
drawn
perplexed
responses
two
years
ago,
these
terms
have
become
part
of
the
daily
activities
conducted
in
popular
SNS
today.
The
feverish
popularity
of
such
websites
has
no
doubt
piqued
the
curiosity
and
interest
of
many
students
as
well
as
young
working
professionals.
“Poking”
and
“throwing
sheep”
are
just
some
of
the
many
activities
one
can
engage
in
Facebook,
9
currently
one
of
the
most
popular
SNS
used
to
socialize
with
both
family
and
friends,
expanding
and
organizing
existing
offline
social
connections
while
building
new
ones.
Besides
allowing
for
communication
among
the
ever-‐widening
circles
of
both
youths
and
adults,
another
draw
of
SNS
is
how
they
allow
for
the
convergence
of
different
online
tools:
emailing,
messaging,
website
creation
and
customization,
dairies,
photo
albums,
music
or
video
uploading
and
downloading.
Technology
has
become
a
platform
where
different
types
of
applications
can
be
used,
for
the
same
purpose
of
socializing.
SNS
do
not
come
with
a
prescribed
way
of
using
the
technology,
but
rather,
permit
customization,
depending
on
the
preferences
of
the
users.
This
has
allowed
for
users
to
explore
the
affordances
of
SNS,
to
pick
and
choose
which
tools
to
use
for
socialization.
This
has
also
resulted
in
a
new
set
of
online
demographics,
where
people
from
the
same
demographic
group
offline
may
use
SNS
differently,
based
on
their
interests
and
preferences.
The
rise
of
SNS
has
drawn
the
attention
of
not
just
media
scholars,
but
also
the
media,
as
seen
from
the
increasing
coverage
of
the
SNS
phenomena
in
newspapers.
Advertisers
and
businesses
are
also
interested
to
see
how
they
can
leverage
on
SNS
to
get
their
messages
out
to
their
target
markets
in
a
manner
that
is
most
accessible
to
their
consumers.
Educators
are
interested
in
whether
they
can
incorporate
SNS
in
their
syllabus
to
capture
their
students’
attention
and
sustaining
their
interest
while
carrying
out
classes
effectively.
Even
political
10
figures
are
creating
a
presence
in
SNS
so
as
to
better
reach
out
to
their
constituents;
with
the
2008
American
elections
demonstrating
this
point.
Therefore
this
interest
in
SNS
requires
more
in
depth
investigation
and
research
as
we
need
to
better
understand
SNS
and
how
it
is
being
used,
especially
among
today’s
highly
mediatized
youths.
This
is
because
youths
use
SNS
to
not
just
socialize,
but
also
to
build
and
try
out
different
ways
of
portraying
themselves
in
their
online
profiles.
In
Singapore,
a
lot
of
media
coverage
in
the
last
two
years
have
been
on
SNS
and
how
Singaporean
youths
use
SNS.
The
exponential
increase
in
Facebook
users,
especially
among
the
youths,
has
drawn
a
lot
of
attention
from
parents
as
well
as
educators
who
have
sought
to
better
understand
why
youth
in
Singapore
are
so
active
on
SNS.
Parents
are
also
concerned
about
its
potential
for
misuse,
given
cases
reported
in
the
news
of
Singaporean
youths
engaging
in
racist
activities
on
Faacebook
(The
Straits
Times,
2010)
and
cyberbullying
(The
Straits
Times,
2010).
There
is,
however,
a
lack
of
information
obtained
via
formal
academic
research
on
youths’
use
of
SNS
in
a
local
context,
though
there
have
been
studies
have
been
conducted
overseas,
especially
in
the
States.
This
may
be
attributed
to
the
States
as
being
the
country
where
some
of
the
most
popular
SNS
such
as
Facebook
were
created
and
are
still
very
popular.
The
SNS
culture
over
in
the
States
and
its
steady
uptake
have
allowed
for
researchers
to
conduct
studies
on
the
SNS
technology
and
users.
This
paper
aims
to
value-‐add
to
existing
studies
done
on
SNS
and
youths
in
a
Singapore
context.
11
The
Facebook
fever
hit
Singapore
in
2008
with
students
and
young
professionals
rushing
in
droves
to
sign
up.
As
of
July
2008,
Singapore
was
in
the
top
ten
countries
with
the
highest
Facebook
penetration
rate
(Facebook.com,
2008).
Facebook
has
also
become
the
third
most
visited
website
in
Singapore
in
April
2009
(Hitwise
Asia,
2009).
Thus
there
is
a
need
to
understand
this
growing
interest
in
SNS
in
Singapore.
Such
interest
in
SNS
will
have
spillover
effects
in
the
social,
economic
and
even
political
domains.
Local
business
operations
will
be
affected
(Cheney,
2008),
the
public
sphere
will
experience
changes
as
well
(Sullivan,
2008)
and
even
the
way
people
conduct
relationships
online
and
offline
will
be
affected
(Magid,
2008).
The
far-‐reaching
effects
of
SNS
behoove
the
need
to
further
examine
SNS
in
the
Singaporean
context.
Another
concern
that
has
arisen
from
the
rise
of
SNS
in
Singapore
is
that
of
youths’
safety
online.
Issues
such
as
online
sexual
solicitation
targeted
at
youths
have
been
of
concern
to
parents,
educators
as
well
as
governments
as
they
are
concerned
that
youths
are
vulnerable
to
such
deviant
acts,
especially
sexual
solicitation.
Therefore,
this
paper
hopes
to
bridge
the
gap,
by
understanding
the
knowledge
about
SNS
parents
and
their
children,
as
well
as
how
youths
portray
themselves
online,
if
they
are
savvy
enough
to
protect
themselves
online
and
how
youths
utilize
SNS
settings
to
protect
their
personal
information
and
their
level
of
information
disclosure
in
SNS.
12
This
research
thus
specifically
seeks
to
answer
the
following
questions:
RQ1:
Do
Singaporean
youths
adopt
privacy
safeguards
in
Facebook?
RQ2:
What
is
the
extent
and
nature
of
information
disclosure
by
Singapore
youths
in
SNS?
RQ3:
To
what
extent
are
Singaporean
parents
aware
of
the
nature
of
personal
information
disclosure
by
their
teenage
children
in
Facebook?
RQ4:
How
safe
do
Singaporean
parents
perceive
their
teenage
children
to
be
in
Facebook?
RQ5:
Are
there
disparities
between
youths’
and
parents’
perceptions
of
the
risk
of
personal
information
disclosure
vis
a
vis
Facebook?
For
the
rest
of
Chapter
One,
context
for
this
study
is
set
by
providing
background
information
on
the
basic
features
of
SNS,
how
SNS
became
a
worldwide
phenomenon
and
in
particular,
the
rise
of
Facebook
and
how
Facebook
differs
from
other
SNS.
The
parameters
for
this
study
shall
also
be
defined.
Chapter
Two
shall
discuss
the
demographic
group
for
this
research:
youths.
The
history
of
this
demographic
group,
the
issues
related
to
youths,
especially
identity
formation
and
negotiation,
which
are
predominantly
active
in
this
demographic.
Literature
discussing
youths
in
the
online
environment
shall
be
examined
as
well,
to
set
the
framework
for
this
study.
Issues
such
as
youths
and
13
online
identities,
online
pornography
and
sexual
solicitation
shall
be
the
focus
as
they
are
relevant
to
the
SNS
environment
that
is
the
context
of
this
research.
For
the
third
chapter,
concepts
related
to
SNS
shall
be
examined,
as
well
as
the
conception
and
context
of
SNS,
its
evolution
and
current
state.
The
literature
review
will
discuss
concepts
in
social
science
and
communication
studies
that
have
been
used
in
previous
SNS
studies
and
related
concepts
such
as
identity
formation,
contextualizing
in
the
SNS
as
well
as
privacy
and
surveillance
issues
in
SNS
that
are
especially
applicable
to
youths.
There
will
be
a
brief
discussion
of
policy
implications
from
conducting
research
on
youths
and
SNS.
Chapter
Four
rounds
up
the
literature
review
by
compiling
a
coherent
theoretical
framework
for
privacy
and
information
disclosure.
Based
on
existing
scholarship,
the
concept
of
privacy
is
examined
in
the
context
of
social
network
theory.
Information
disclosure
is
also
drawn
into
the
discussion
and
privacy
literature
on
parents
and
youths
are
discussed,
including
on-‐going
debates
on
youths
and
online
privacy.
The
chapter
concludes
with
research
questions
that
seek
to
understand
how
youths
portray
themselves
online
as
well
as
their
perceptions
of
online
privacy
vis
a
vis
their
parents’.
Chapter
Five
explicates
the
research
methods
involved
in
the
study.
Based
on
secondary
research
and
considering
from
a
myriad
of
research
methods
the
14
most
suitable
research
method
for
the
study,
a
combination
of
different
quantitative
research
methods
are
used
to
address
the
research
questions.
Chapter
Six
synthesizes
the
results
from
the
content
analysis
of
Facebook
profiles
and
discusses
the
findings
and
their
relevance
in
answering
the
research
questions.
It
concludes
with
how
the
findings
value-‐add
to
current
literature
as
well
as
lend
to
the
framework
for
the
online
surveys
Chapter
Seven
provides
analyses
of
the
data
collected
from
the
online
surveys
to
first
establish
youths’
as
well
as
their
parents’
perception
of
offline
and
online
privacy.
Following
that,
findings
from
the
surveys
shall
be
utilized
to
demonstrate
if
there
exist
any
disparities
on
online
privacy
perceptions
between
Singaporean
youths
and
parents.
Chapter
Eight
shall
conclude
the
study
by
discussing
the
limitations
of
the
study
as
well
as
its
contribution
to
the
research
done
thus
far
on
SNS.
Proposals
and
suggestions
for
future
studies
shall
also
be
addressed
in
this
chapter.
1.2
Background
information:
What
is
a
Social
Network
Site
(SNS)?
Computer
Mediated
Communication
(CMC)
refers
to
communication
that
occurs
via
computer
technology
(Monberg,
2005).
CMC
is
an
excellent
way
to
participate
in
social
networks
in
today’s
networked
society.
Social
networks
exist
both
on
and
offline
and
involve
people
planning
and
cultivating
business,
15
social
contacts,
and
personal
relationships
(Villar,
Juan,
&
Capell,
2000;
Carroll
&
Rosson,
2003;
Carter,
2005;
Nardi,
2005;
Anderson
&
Emmers-‐Sommer,
2006).
Like
many
emergent
technologies,
SNS
are
difficult
to
define
as
they
usually
have
an
amalgamation
of
features
from
other
successful
web
applications.
These
sites,
which
include
Facebook
and
MySpace,
are
fairly
new.
Such
websites
usually
have
applications
that
are
software
applications
used
within
SNS
but
are
not
standalone
social
network
applications
(Vie,
2007).
A
distinctive
feature
of
SNS
is
that
they
exist
in
computer
mediated
environments
which
rely
on
social
software
applications
to
allow
individuals
to
build
their
virtual
profiles,
make
connections
with
other
members
and
establish
nodal
relationships
among
selected
user
profiles
(boyd,
2004).
A
definition
which
was
proposed
by
boyd
and
Ellison
(2007)
mentioned
basic
features
of
SNS
which
included
“(1)
a
public
or
semi-‐public
profile
within
a
bounded
system,
(2)
articulate
a
list
of
other
users
with
whom
they
share
a
connection
and
(3)
view
and
traverse
their
list
of
connections
and
those
made
by
others
within
the
system.”
This
definition
captures
the
crux
of
SNS,
which
is
the
explicating
of
relationships’
interconnectivity.
Members
of
SNS
create
profiles
or
virtual
personas
to
network
and
connect
to
other
members.
These
sites
exist
to
facilitate
the
formation
of
social
ties,
may
16
they
be
strong
(familial
bonds
and
very
good
friends)
or
weak
(acquaintances
and
co-‐workers
one
does
not
know
very
well)
(Granovetter,
1973).
A
unique
feature
of
SNS
is
how
most
SNS
users
do
not
use
SNS
to
meet
strangers,
but
rather,
SNS
enable
users
to
articulate
and
make
visible
their
existing
social
networks.
This
reinforces
the
idea
of
latent
ties
(Haythornthwaite,
2005)
being
present
in
SNS
and
how
SNS
are
not
usually
used
to
initiate
relationships
between
strangers
though
the
technology
might
allow
for
such
activities
to
take
place.
1.3
Basic
features
of
SNS
With
the
plethora
of
technical
features
available
on
SNS,
the
primary
function
is
that
of
visible
profiles
which
display
a
list
of
“Friends”
who
are
also
users
of
the
system.
Such
profiles
consist
of
webpages
where
one
can
“type
oneself
into
being”
(Sunden,
2003,
p.3).
The
user
will
be
asked
to
fill
up
information
pertaining
to
one’s
location,
background,
education,
age
and
interests.
Photo
uploading
is
also
encouraged
to
complete
one’s
online
SNS
profile.
Some
sites
allow
for
customization
of
the
profile
pages
with
multimedia
tools
while
others
such
as
Facebook
allow
users
to
add
modules
or
applications.
The
user
also
yields
control
over
the
level
of
privacy
of
one’s
profile
page.
Profiles
of
some
SNS
come
up
as
results
on
search
engines
as
open
search
results
and
some
SNS
require
users
to
pay
to
maintain
a
level
of
privacy.
Facebook’s
approach
to
17
users’
privacy
is
different
from
other
SNS
as
by
default;
users
in
the
same
“network”
can
view
each
others’
profiles
unless
the
profile
owner
increases
his/her
privacy
settings.
Such
different
approaches
to
privacy
and
access
are
avenues
of
differentiation
between
SNS
(boyd
&
Ellison,
2007).
All
the
relationships
will
be
under
a
Friends
list
in
SNS.
Thus
the
term
“friends”
in
the
SNS
context
can
be
misleading
as
it
does
not
reflect
the
levels
which
people
are
connected.
The
depth
of
such
relationships
is
therefore
neglected
and
generalized.
However,
although
the
public
listing
of
friends
may
be
misleading,
it
is
a
critical
component
of
SNS
as
it
provides
links
to
the
profiles
of
one’s
Friends
that
allows
for
users
to
traverse
from
profile
to
profile;
thus
going
through
the
different
networks
of
different
users
by
clicking
on
the
various
profiles.
Again,
this
is
subject
to
the
privacy
settings
of
most
users
and
for
most
SNS,
the
longer
the
SNS
has
been
around,
the
more
private
the
profiles
become.
Most
SNS
also
provide
the
feature
of
private
and
open
messaging,
where
users
can
leave
messages
on
their
friends’
profile
or
to
leave
them
a
private
message.
This
feature
usually
involves
leaving
“comments”
or
“posts”
on
their
friends’
profiles.
For
Facebook,
private
messages
allow
for
more
than
one
friend
to
be
messaged
simultaneously.
18
1.4
World-wide
SNS
phenomenon
and
the
rise
of
Facebook
Even
as
MySpace
captured
the
attention
of
the
American
and
international
media,
other
SNS
were
proliferating
and
gaining
popularity
all
over
the
world.
Friendster
gained
a
strong
user
base
in
the
Pacific
Islands,
Orkut
became
the
most
popular
SNS
in
Brazil
before
taking
off
in
India
as
well
(Madhavan,
2007).
Mixi
gained
support
in
Japan,
likewise
for
LunarStorm
in
Sweden,
just
as
the
Dutch
users
adopted
Hyves
as
their
national
SNS.
Hi5
became
popular
in
Latin
America
and
South
America
and
Europe,
Bebo
also
captured
the
United
Kingdom,
New
Zealand
and
Australia
SNS
market
(boyd
&
Ellison,
2007).
Unlike
previous
SNS,
Facebook
started
out
to
support
university
networks
only.
Facebook
began
in
early
2004
as
a
Harvard-‐only
SNS
(Cassidy,
2006).
Only
students
with
a
Harvard
email
address
were
allowed
to
sign
up
with
the
SNS.
Later
Facebook
opened
up
registration
to
other
universities
and
education
institutions,
with
the
aim
to
keep
the
SNS
exclusive
and
it
was
perceived
to
be
a
private
and
closed
community
(boyd
&
Ellison,
2007).
In
September
2005,
Facebook
expanded
to
include
high
school
students
and
eventually
opened
up
to
anyone
with
an
email
address.
1.5
Background
of
Facebook
Facebook,
introduced
in
2004
by
Harvard
student
Mark
Zuckerburg
has
an
international
following
of
more
than
400
million
active
members
as
of
July
19
20101.
Presently,
Facebook
is
the
most
used
social
network
by
worldwide
monthly
active
users,
followed
by
NewsCorp’s
MySpace
(ComScore.com,
2010).
Facebook
is
highly
integrated
into
the
daily
media
habits
of
its
users:
the
typical
user
spends
about
20
minutes
a
day
on
the
site
and
two-‐thirds
of
them
log
in
at
least
once
a
day
(Cassidy,
2006).
Taking
advantage
of
the
success
of
its
launch
among
the
college-‐going
population,
Facebook
launched
a
high
school
version
in
early
September
2005.
The
following
year
saw
the
introduction
of
communities
in
the
website
such
as
Microsoft,
Amazon
and
PepsiCo
(Barton,
2006).
From
the
exponential
growth
of
Facebook
within
a
span
of
a
few
years,
we
can
see
how
quickly
Facebook
expanded
once
it
made
itself
more
accessible
and
available
to
the
masses.
Facebook
underwent
an
overhaul
in
July
2008
and
proceeded
to
officially
launch
its
revamped
website
which
received
generally
negative
feedback
from
most
Facebook
users.
Facebook
underwent
another
facelift
to
improve
its
privacy
settings
in
early
2010.
Despite
Facebook’s
recent
spate
of
criticisms
over
its
handling
of
users’
personal
information
and
privacy
settings,
it
not
only
managed
to
retain
most
of
its
users,
its
number
of
active
members
continues
to
increase
steadily.
1
Statistic obtained from http://stanford.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
20
1.5.1
Facebook
features
One
of
Facebook’s
most
distinctive
features
is
its
News
Feed.
Instead
of
the
usual
newsfeed
where
one
gets
information
on
the
latest
news
events,
News
Feed
contains
the
latest
information
as
well
as
snippets
of
tidbits
about
the
friends
who
are
on
one’s
Facebook’s
list
of
friends
(Fig.
1
and
3
in
Appendices).
Users
are
also
able
to
view
other
friends’
profiles
and
the
activities
they
are
engaged
in.
This
can
be
seen
from
brief
updates
from
the
friends
as
well
as
photos
and
video
postings
and
comments
from
friends
of
friends
are
also
available
for
viewing
(Fig.
3
in
Appendices).
On
top
of
this,
users
are
also
able
to
do
most
of
the
basic
networking
actions
such
as
sending
private
messages,
posting
public
messages
on
the
Fun
Walls,
or
“poking”
friends
to
incite
a
response
from
them
(Fig.
2
in
Appendices).
Facebook
is
filled
activities
to
engage
one’s
friends
as
well
as
information
on
one’s
friends,
from
getting
help
in
social
games
such
as
Mafia
War
and
Farmville
to
the
events
their
friends
on
Facebook
are
attending.
This
has
brought
interactivity
to
a
new
level
as
now,
SNS
users
are
able
to
contribute
to
take
screen
shots
of
their
activities
in
social
games
such
as
Farmville
and
contribute
to
content
generation
in
the
SNS.
(Fig.
3
in
Appendices.)
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
one
is
able
to
restrict
the
viewership
of
one’s
profile
in
Facebook,
where
one
can
limit
the
access
to
one’s
profile
to
users
in
the
Friends
list.
Other
users
will
only
be
able
to
view
a
limited
profile
of
the
user.
21
This
feature
is
used
more
frequently
as
Facebook
now
allows
anyone
with
an
email
address
to
register.
1.5.2
What
sets
Facebook
apart
from
other
SNS
How
does
Facebook
distinguish
itself
from
the
other
online
social
networking
websites?
danah
boyd,
a
social
media
analyst
at
Microsoft,
puts
it
across
best
when
she
mentioned
that
the
initial
concept
of
Facebook
was
actually
a
groundbreaking
effort
to
link
up
students
in
the
Ivy
League
universities.
It
became
a
“key
piece
of
the
social
infrastructure”
in
such
institutions
(The
Straits
Times,
September
2007).
According
to
Zuckerburg,
the
motivation
for
setting
up
the
website
was
to
address
“a
social
need
at
Harvard
to
be
able
to
identify
people
in
the
other
residential
houses”
(Moyle,
2004).
This
initial
exclusive
nature
of
Facebook
was
what
set
it
apart
from
similar
websites
such
as
MySpace.
Finally,
the
unique
activities
which
are
carried
out
only
in
Facebook,
such
as
social
games
like
Farmville,
has
allowed
Facebook
users
to
develop
a
set
of
lingo
which
is
Facebook-‐specific.
Such
applications
allow
Facebook
to
develop
a
self-‐
sustaining
model.
1.6
Popular
online
social
networking
websites
in
Singapore
There
are
hundreds
of
social
networking
websites,
each
with
a
slightly
different
look
and
feel.
Some
of
the
more
popular
websites
in
the
Singaporean
context
include
Friendster,
which
is
open
to
the
general
public;
MySpace,
which
is
well-‐
known
for
being
the
launch
pad
of
many
bands
as
well
as
Western
mainstream
22
singing
artistes.
From
Fig
2,
(re
Appendices),
the
most
popular
SNS
in
Singapore
are
Friendster
and
Facebook,
which
are
utilized
by
mainly
Secondary
School,
Junior
College,
Polytechnic
and
University
students,
though
it
has
also
recently
witnessed
an
influx
of
organizations
creating
a
presence
in
the
online
community
(Wong,
T.,
2007).
As
of
Dec
2008,
Facebook
as
overtaken
Friendster
as
the
top
SNS
in
Singapore
(Hitwise.com,
2008).
Chapter
2:
Literature
review
on
youths
and
their
online
culture
It
is
pertinent
to
discuss
the
demographic
group
of
youths
for
this
study.
The
idea
of
youth
is
a
complex
one
because
there
is
no
general
definition
or
consensus
on
what
youths
encompasses.
The
idea
of
youths
will
be
discussed
in
this
chapter,
along
with
its
relationship
with
the
Internet
and
how
the
idea
of
an
online
culture
is
crucial
to
this
demographic,
which
is
one
of
the
most
active
groups
online
today.
For
the
purpose
of
this
study,
the
terms
“students”,
“youths”
and
“teenage
children”
are
used
interchangeably
to
refer
to
teenagers
of
secondary
school-‐going
age,
i.e
12
years
to
17
years
old.
2.1
Youths
2.1.1
The
idea
of
a
generation
Although
the
term
youths
was
coined
in
the
1920s
and
later
made
popular
in
the
1940s
by
advertisers,
the
idea
of
youths
should
be
examined
in
the
context
of
generations.
Edmunds
and
Turner
(2002)
provide
the
basis
for
a
sociological
and
historical
theory
of
generations.
They
define
a
generation
as
“an
age
cohort
that
comes
to
have
social
significance
by
virtue
of
constituting
itself
as
a
cultural
23
identity.”
(p.7)
Similarly,
Bordieu
(1993)
argues
that
generations
are
socially
and
culturally
defined
and
produced.
Different
generations
will
have
different
tastes,
orientations,
beliefs
and
dispositions,
which
led
to
the
invention
and
use
of
a
category
like
“Generation
X”
(and
its
subsequent
mutations),
reflecting
both
the
importance
and
complexity
of
age
–based
distinctions
in
a
contemporary
consumer
culture
(Ulrich
&
Harris,
2003).
Therefore,
by
extension,
the
concept
of
youth
is
essentially
and
social
and
historical
construct,
rather
than
a
universal
state
of
being
(Buckingham,
2008).
Besides
world
events
such
as
wars
and
economic
depressions,
the
media
and
consumer
culture
have
played
a
central
role
in
the
defining
and
redefining
of
generational
differences
and
identities
(Buckingham,
2006).
In
fact,
in
attempting
to
escape
the
limitations
of
normative
psychological
accounts,
there
has
been
a
growing
emphasis
on
how
the
media,
and
the
way
media
is
used,
contribute
to
defining
the
meanings
of
age
differences
(Jenkins,
1998;
Buckingham,
2005).
Australian
cultural
theorist
Wark
(1993)
argues
that
“generations
are
not
defined
by
war
or
depression
anymore;
they
are
defined
by
media
culture”
(p.75),
which
is
very
apt
in
today’s
media-‐heavy
consumerist
post
industrial
economy.
An
indication
that
we
are
in
a
consumerist
rather
than
technology-‐deterministic
world
today
is
how
for
most
young
people,
technology
today
is
a
relatively
24
marginal
concern.
Most
youth
use
technology
without
being
aware
that
they
are
using
technology.
Very
few
of
them
are
interested
in
technology
in
its
own
right
and
most
are
simply
concerned
about
what
they
can
use
it
for
(Buckingham,
2006;
Herring,
2008).
Technology
provides
new
ways
of
forming
identity.
The
generational
differences
are
seen
to
be
produced
by
technology
rather
than
a
result
of
social,
historical
or
cultural
forces
(Tapscott,
1998).
While
this
may
seem
like
a
sweeping
statement,
it
does
affirm
that
technology
has
an
impact
on
one’s
identity
and
especially
for
today’s
Singaporean
youths,
who
are
digital
natives
and
whose
daily
lives
revolve
around
technology.
2.1.2
Identity
formation
and
negotiation
Identity
is
a
very
broad
and
ambiguous
concept,
yet
it
focuses
attention
on
critical
questions
about
personal
development
and
social
relationships
–
questions
that
are
crucial
for
our
understanding
of
youths’
growth
into
adulthood
and
the
nature
of
their
social
and
cultural
experiences
(Buckingham,
2008).
The
online
platform
provides
youth
today
an
avenue
to
experiment
with
their
identities
online;
this
explains
why
youths
spend
a
lot
of
time
online.
The
notion
that
social
structures
shape
identity
is
at
the
heart
of
sociological
theory
(Agger,
2004).
When
this
concept
is
applied
to
children’s
lives,
they
are
the
subjects
of
a
whole
set
of
social
structures,
some
of
them
at
home,
some
at
school
and
some
at
their
virtual
spaces.
The
interplay
between
each
of
these
25
structures
shapes
the
self
in
various
ways,
and
the
impact
of
each
structure
on
the
other
is
a
dialectic
process
(Thomas,
2007).
It
is
this
interplay
that
may
be
reflected
in
youths’
online
identities.
New
technologies
are
a
good
place
to
start
investigations
on
how
youths
negotiate
their
identities
online.
For
many
youths,
especially
in
industrialized
nations,
digital
media
are
significant
modalities
through
which
they
are
seeking,
consciously
or
unconsciously,
the
answers
to
identity
questions,
questions
which
Buckingham
and
Sefton-‐Green
(1994)
describe
“the
me
that
is
me”.
Thus,
a
youth’s
identity
online
is
about
the
authoring
of
self
as
a
living-‐out
of
these
states
of
being,
becoming,
belonging
and
behaving
through
a
range
of
everyday
social
and
discursive
practices
that
are
connected
with
the
body.
Yet
it
is
also
about
a
close
editing
of
self,
the
aspects
of
self
to
be
shared
with
the
public
(Thomas,
2007).
The
reason
why
youths
practice
editing
of
themselves
is
due
to
youths’
digital
productions
are
mostly
viewed
or
consumed
by
youth
audiences,
the
group
who
are
producers
themselves.
They
are
their
own
audience.
There
is
reflexivity
to
this
process,
a
conscious
looking,
not
only
at
their
production
(themselves),
but
also
how
others
view
their
productions
(Weber
&
Mitchell,
2008).
The
formation
of
identity
often
involves
a
process
of
stereotyping
or
cognitive
oversimplification
that
allows
people
to
distinguish
easily
between
self
and
26
other
as
well
as
to
define
themselves
and
their
group
in
positive
ways
(Buckingham,
2008).
Walther
and
et.
al.
(1994)
proposed
a
social
information
processing
theory
which
supports
this,
that
regardless
of
the
medium,
people
experience
the
need
to
reduce
uncertainty
and
increase
affinity.
Goffman
(1959)
makes
a
distinction
between
personal
identity
and
social
identity,
as
though
collective
identifications
or
performances
are
different
and
disparate
from
the
individual
ones.
This
process
of
performance,
interpretation
and
adjustment
is
also
known
as
impression
management,
which
is
part
of
a
larger
process
where
people
try
to
define
a
situation
through
their
behavior
(boyd,
2008;
Stern,
2008).
This
concept
is
relevant
to
youths’
use
of
digital
media,
where
performances
are
necessitated
due
to
the
lack
of
physical
cues
online.
However,
not
only
is
the
online
environment
not
impersonal
due
to
the
lack
of
physical
cues,
it
can
be
creative,
especially
when
people
use
it
to
assert
their
own
identities
and
explore
new
means
of
self-‐presentation
(Baym,
2002).
In
some
sense,
youth
have
more
control
online
as
they
can
choose
what
information
to
put
forward,
though
once
the
information
is
online,
it
may
be
subject
to
misinterpretation.
Through
their
SNS
profiles,
youths
can
express
certain
aspects
of
their
identity
for
their
peers
to
see
and
interpret.
They
construct
their
profiles
for
their
friends
and
peers
to
view
and
because
there
is
a
link
between
their
online
and
offline
communities,
youths
are
inclined
to
present
the
side
of
themselves
they
believe
will
be
well
received
by
their
peers.
27
It
is
interesting
to
note
though
that
youths,
teenagers
in
particular,
often
fabricate
key
identifying
information
like
name,
age
and
location
to
protect
themselves.
While
parents’
protection
groups
encourage
such
deception
to
protect
children
from
strangers
(Donath
&
boyd,
2004),
many
teenagers
actually
engage
in
this
practice
to
avoid
the
watchful
eyes
of
the
more
tech-‐savvy
parents
(boyd,
2008).
Teenagers
feel
that
SNS
should
be
their
private
space
online
while
most
parents
disagree
with
this
notion
as
they
believe
that
nothing
posted
online
is
private.
Teenagers
feel
that
just
because
anyone
can
access
their
SNS
site
does
not
mean
that
everyone,
including
parents,
should.
How
are
teenagers
supposed
to
be
“cool”
to
both
their
peers
and
their
parents
simultaneously
on
their
SNS?
(boyd,
2008).
This
is
an
interesting
contention
as
it
indicates
to
some
extent,
youths’
perceptions
of
online
privacy
vis
a
vis
their
parents’
perceptions.
As
SNS
like
Facebook
develop
and
grow,
there
is
a
trend
of
SNS
becoming
communities
of
practice,
which,
according
to
Wenger
and
Synder
(2000),
are
informal
groups
of
people
bound
together
through
a
shared
passion
for
a
joint
enterprise.
This
is
due
to
the
popularity
of
multi-‐player
social
games
on
SNS
such
as
Restaurant
City
and
Mafia
Wars
on
Facebook,
where
one
can
invite
friends
to
join
the
game
to
help
complete
tasks.
These
communities
of
practice
allow
youths
to
explore
their
identities
not
just
as
individuals,
but
also
their
role
and
status
in
communities,
as
one
of
the
most
important
aspects
in
shaping
online
28
identity
is
related
to
the
sense
of
community
and
belonging
to
the
online
community
(Thomas,
2007).
From
present
literature
on
communities
of
practice,
we
see
how
youths’
technical
skills
are
not
the
only
skills
at
issue
in
these
domestic
communities
of
practice.
Equally
important
to
parents
are
the
emotional
competence
and
vulnerability
of
the
youths
(Holloway
&
Valentine,
2003)
and
how
they
may
be
exploited
while
online.
2.2
Concerns
about
youth
online
Presently,
there
are
two
main
ongoing
discourses
about
youth
online.
Critics
of
digital
technology
view
it
as
threatening,
even
destroying
childhood.
Youths
are
seen
to
not
only
be
more
exposed
and
vulnerable
to
online
pedophiles,
but
also
from
a
range
of
negative
physical
and
psychological
consequences
derived
from
them
using
the
technology
(Healy,
1998;
Armstrong
&
Casement,
2000).
Advocates
of
digital
technology,
on
the
other
hand,
see
it
as
a
tool
to
liberate
youth,
to
bypass
the
influence
of
their
elders
and
create
their
own
autonomous
space
and
forms
of
communication;
which
will
result
in
a
more
open,
democratic,
creative
and
innovation
generation
(Buckingham,
2008).
Parents
tend
to
lean
towards
the
critical
view
of
digital
technology
but
are
also
aware
that
the
technology
is
here
to
stay
and
it
is
to
their
children’s
benefit
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
technology.
29
Parents
are
keen
to
improve
their
children’s
educational
prospects,
but
are
also
concerned
about
online
dangers
(Turow
&
Nir,
2000;
Livingstone,
2002;
Facer
et
al.,
2003).
Also,
media
attention
today
more
often
alerts
the
public
to
the
potential
risks
and
dangers
of
the
Internet
and
by
association,
SNS;
stimulating
discussions
on
how
to
regulate
or
restrict
children’s
Internet
use
(Livingstone
&
Bober,
2006).
Many
of
these
risks
and
opportunities
are
not
new
to
society,
they
are,
arguably,
more
immediate
and
widespread,
especially
for
children,
than
was
the
case
of
previously
new
media
(Flichy,
2002;
Livingstone,
2002).
The
prevailing
concern
that
parents
have
is
how
Internet
use
may
lead
their
children
to
become
isolated
from
others,
expose
them
to
sexual
and/or
violent
images,
displace
more
worthwhile
activities
and
risk
their
privacy.
At
the
same
time,
most
believe
that
the
Internet
can
help
their
children
do
better
in
school
and
learn
useful
knowledge.
This
is
the
reason
why
they
have
domestic
Internet
access
in
the
first
place
(Turow
&
Nir,
2000;
Livingstone
&
Bovill,
2001;
Buckingham,
2002).
Therefore
a
challenge
faced
by
parents
is
how
to
balance
their
concern
in
implementing
safeguards
for
their
children
online
while
not
depriving
their
children
of
the
advantageous
potential
of
the
Internet.
From
studies
conducted,
parents,
it
appears,
underestimate
the
risks
their
children
are
experiencing
online.
Children,
on
the
other
hand,
underestimate
the
regulatory
practices
their
parents
attempt
to
implement.
Parental
anxieties
tend
towards
being
ill-‐informed
and
ineffective
in
supporting
regulation.
Children’s
30
enthusiasm
for
the
new
medium
is
resulting
in
some
risky
behaviors
(Livingstone
&
Bober,
2006).
Therefore,
media
scholars
are
trying
to
find
a
middle
ground
where
parents
are
aware
of
the
risks
their
children
are
experiencing
online
without
causing
panic
and
for
children
to
rein
their
enthusiasm
and
to
use
the
technology
responsibly.
2.2.1
Online
sexual
solicitations
Many
studies
have
been
conducted
on
youth
and
online
sexual
solicitations,
as
this
is
a
real
online
danger
that
is
faced
by
youths,
who
may
not
be
equipped
emotionally
to
deal
with
predators
online.
A
study
conducted
in
the
States
in
2008
by
Ybarra
and
Mitchell
indicated
that
15%
of
1588
youths
reported
an
unwanted
sexual
solicitation.
Such
solicitations
are
more
common
in
instant
messaging
and
chat
rooms,
and
harassment
usually
took
place
in
instant
messaging
than
through
SNS.
The
results
of
this
study
corroborated
with
the
Youth
Internet
Safety
Survey
which
also
found
that
25%
of
youths
reportings
an
unwanted
exposure
to
sexual
material.
Possible
repercussions
of
youths
who
received
an
aggressive
sexual
solicitation
were
also
mentioned
in
the
studies.
They
were
almost
2.5
times
as
likely
to
report
experiencing
physical
abuse,
sexual
abuse
or
high
parent
conflict
(Wells
&
Mitchell,
2008).
Most
girls
in
Halloway
and
Valentine’s
2003
study
are
most
likely
to
break
parental
rules
by
talking
to
strangers,
reflecting
their
preference
31
for
using
ICT
for
communication.
This
also
suggests
that
girls
are
more
susceptible
to
online
sexual
solicitations.
2.2.2
Internet
and
health-related
problems
Internet
use
has
become
an
area
of
concern
by
parents
as
well
as
educators
and
physicians
as
illnesses
associated
with
prolonged
Internet
use
surface.
A
study
conducted
by
Wolak,
Mitchell
and
Finkelhor
(2003)
indicated
that
girls
who
had
high
levels
of
conflict
with
parents
or
were
highly
troubled
were
more
like
than
other
girls
to
have
close
online
relationships,
as
were
boys
who
had
low
levels
of
communication
with
their
parents
or
who
were
highly
troubled,
as
compared
to
other
boys.
Youths
with
these
problems
may
also
be
more
vulnerable
to
online
exploitation
or
other
possible
ill
effects
of
online
relationships.
Another
study
conducted
in
Hong
Kong
indicated
that
heavy
Internet
use
of
more
than
four
hours
a
day
has
also
been
associated
with
lower
likelihood
of
engaging
in
health-‐promoting
physical
activities
such
as
exercising
and
seeking
medical
care.
Multiple
risk
behaviors
such
as
skipping
meals
and
sleeping
late
have
also
been
related
to
heavy
Internet
use
(Punamaki
and
et.
al.,
2006;
Kim
and
et.
al.,
2009).
The
effects
of
prolonged
Internet
usage
affects
not
just
relationships
and
youths’
mental
health,
it
also
extends
to
their
physical
health.
A
youth-‐related
Internet
study
conducted
in
the
Netherlands
indicated
that
for
adolescents
who
perceive
low
friendship
quality,
Internet
use
for
communication
purposes
predicted
less
depression
but
Internet
use
for
non-‐
32
communicative
purposes
resulted
in
more
depression
and
more
social
anxiety
(Selfhout
and
et.
al.,
2008).
The
implications
for
this
study
involve
not
only
the
impact
of
Internet
usage,
but
also
the
different
motivations
for
Internet
usage.
Another
high-‐risk
youth
group
is
youth
aggressors/targets
who
are
intense
users
of
the
Internet
and
view
themselves
as
capable
web
users.
Beyond
this,
however,
these
youths
report
significant
psychosocial
challenge,
including
depressive
symptomatology,
problem
behavior,
and
targeting
of
traditional
bullying
(Ybarra
&
Mitchell,
2004).
The
findings
of
this
study
associate
intense
users
of
the
Internet
with
the
lack
in
social
skills.
Chapter
3:
Literature
review
on
SNS
SNS
span
across
different
disciplines
and
fields,
from
technology
to
the
social
sciences
and
they
involve
issues
such
as
online
privacy
and
identity
formation.
Therefore
the
literature
review
for
SNS
also
reflect
the
multi-‐disciplinary
nature
of
SNS,
from
social
sciences
to
computer
science
to
marketing
and
privacy
and
surveillance.
3.1
SNS
research
to
date
Given
the
multi-‐disciplinary
nature
of
SNS,
the
areas
of
research
associated
with
SNS
traverse
the
boundaries
of
social
sciences,
humanities,
law,
business,
communications,
and
computer
sciences.
The
surge
in
SNS-‐related
research
conducted
in
the
last
three
years
has
resulted
in
a
plethora
of
materials
for
references
as
well
as
identifying
gaps
which
have
yet
to
be
addressed
by
33
academic
research.
Therefore
to
come
up
with
a
comprehensive
framework
involving
online
privacy,
there
is
a
need
to
look
beyond
just
privacy
and
SNS
literature
but
also
other
literature
involving
SNS.
So
far,
areas
of
research
associated
with
SNS
and
social
sciences
include
social
capital
(Wellman,
et
al;
2001;
Ellison,
Steinfield
&
Lampe,
2006;
Valenzuela,
Park
&
Kee,
2008),
management
and
presentation
of
virtual
identities
(Marwick,
2005;
Donath
&
boyd,
2004;
Hewitt
&
Forte,
2006;
DiMicco
&
Millen,
2007;
Gosling,
Gaddis
&
Vazire,
2007;
Booth,
2008;
Bryne,
2008;
Evans,
Gosling
&
Carroll,
2008;
Geyer,
et
al.,
2008;
Papacharissi,
2009;
Walther.
Et
al.,
2009),
music
culture
and
SNS
(Beer,
2008;
Suhr,
2009)
the
concept
of
community
in
SNS
(Choi,
2006;
Fono
&
Raynes,
2006;
Dwyer,
2007;
Immorlica,
2007;
Yuta,
Ono
&
Fujiwara,
2007;
boyd,
2008;
Hancock,
Toma
&
Fenner,
2008;
Ryberg
&
Christiansen,
2008;
Chun,
et
al.,
2008;
Papacharissi,
2009)
and
politics
and
civic
engagement
(Gueorguieva,
2007;
Harris,
2008)
Besides
the
social
sciences,
articles
from
computing
sciences
and
technology
have
produced
papers
on
the
different
user
groups
on
SNS
(Valkenburg,
Peter
&
Schouten,
2006;
Hargittai,
2007;
Humphreys,
2007;
Lee
&
Bruckman,
2007;
Arjan,
Pfeil
&
Zaphiris,
2008;
Chapman
&
LaHav,
2008;
Murthy,
2008),
the
use
of
SNS
for
measurement
and
analysis
(Ahn,
et
al.,
2007;
Hsu,
et
al.,
2007;
Mislove,
Gummadi
&
Drushel,
2007;
Mislove,
et.
al.,
2007;
Das,
et
al.,
2008;
Jones,
et
al.,
2008;
Murthy,
2008;
Wilson
&
Nicholas,
2008)
,
the
affordances
of
SNS
34
technology
(Immorlica,
et
al.,
2007;
Felt,
et
al.,
2008;
Gjoka,
et
al.,
2008;
Nazir,
Raza
&
Chuah,
2008)
as
well
as
papers
on
the
network
structure
of
SNS
(Downes,
2005;
Backstrom,
et
al.,
2006;
Backstrom,
Dwork
&
Klienberg,
2007;
Golder,
Wilkinson
&
Huberman,
2007;
Hsu,
et
al.,
2007;
Lampe,
Ellison
&
Steinfield,
2007;
Schiller
&
Mandviwalla,
2007;
Snyder,
Carpenter
&
Slauson,
2007;
Trusov,
Bucklin
&
Pauwels,
2007;
boyd,
2008).
The
affordances
of
SNS
technology
have
also
been
covered
in
specific
industries
such
as
healthcare
(Cain,
2007),
education
and
library
sciences
(Tosh
&
Werdmuller,
2004;
Chu
&
Meulemans,
2007;
Goodwin,
2007;
Ryberg
&
Christiansen,
2008;
King
&
Brown,
2009),
affirming
the
ubiquity
of
SNS.
Areas
of
research
from
the
domains
of
law
and
business
cover
advertising
(Bradford,
2008;
Trusov,
Bucklin
&
Pauwels,
2008),
business
online
communities
(O’Muruchu,
Bresline
&
Decker,
2004),
incorporating
SNS
into
business
strategies
(Enders,
et
al,
2008),
intellectual
property
rights
applied
to
SNS
(Newkirk
&
Viehauser,
2008;
Latham,
Butzer
&
Brown,
2008;
Sithigh,
2008)
and
privacy,
information
disclosure
and
trust
concerns
(boyd,
2004,
2006;
Andrejevic,
2005;
Gross
&
Acquisit,
2005;
Hodge,
2006;
Stutzman,
2006;
Christ,
Berges
&
Trevino,
2007;
Dwyer,
Hiltz
&
Passerini,
2007;
Strater
&
Richter,
2007;
Vie,
2007;
boyd,
2008;
De
Souza
&
Dick,
2008;
Genova,
2009).
35
From
the
literature
review
on
SNS,
many
articles
and
papers
are
found
to
be
inter-‐disciplinary,
drawing
on
the
specialized
knowledge
of
different
fields.
3.1.1
Virtual
communities
and
the
network
effect
Rheingold
(2000)
explains
virtual
communities
as
social
aggregations
that
emerge
from
the
Internet
when
enough
people
carry
on
public
discussions
long
enough,
with
sufficient
human
feelings,
to
form
webs
of
personal
relationships
in
cyberspace.
boyd
and
Heer
(2006)
studied
the
network
effect
and
found
that
personal
connections
in
SNS
are
homogenous
in
nature.
When
people
socialize,
they
are
attracted
to
others
who
are
similar
to
them,
thus
reinforcing
the
idea
of
homophily
being
present
in
SNS
connections
(Turchi,
2007).
3.1.2
Community,
culture
and
civic
engagement
Given
the
affordances
of
SNS,
a
platform
that
makes
it
easier
for
people
to
connect
and
interact,
the
areas
of
community,
culture
and
civic
engagement
make
for
relevant
research
topics.
This
is
because
SNS
being
an
online
community
phenomenon
which
has
only
gained
prominence
in
recent
years
has
a
culture
is
different
from
other
online
cultures
due
to
the
activities
and
its
users;
the
reach
of
SNS
allows
certain
demographics
of
the
population
to
promote
certain
civic
causes
and
in
the
course
of
doing
so,
promoting
civic
engagement.
The
differences
among
the
various
SNS
have
propelled
studies
like
the
one
conducted
by
O’Murchu,
Breslin
and
Decker
in
2004,
which
classified
the
various
SNS
and
evaluated
their
features
and
functionality.
36
A
qualitative
study
that
illustrated
the
interdependency
and
interactions
of
members
in
a
SNS
was
conducted
to
explore
how
subjects
use
social
networking
sites
and
instant
messenger
to
engage
in
interpersonal
relationships.
The
results
indicate
that
attitudes
towards
privacy
and
impression
management,
when
mediated
by
technology,
translate
into
social
interactions
(Dwyer,
2007).
Therefore
while
online
communities
such
as
SNS
are
mediated
by
technology,
individual
members’
values
are
also
vital
in
determining
the
types
of
interaction
that
take
place.
Media
scholars
have
also
expressed
concern
over
how
the
different
values
and
cultures
in
SNS
might
be
overshadowed
by
overemphasizing
on
the
affordances
of
SNS
technology
(Suhr,
2009).
This
is
a
valid
point,
especially
as
offline
values
might
be
transferred
online.
The
different
values
and
cultures
in
SNS
will
become
more
apparent
over
time,
as
SNS
is
a
participatory
medium.
This
will
affect
the
ways
that
users
use
SNS.
3.1.3
Social
Capital
SNS
are
distinguished
from
the
first
wave
of
virtual
community
websites
as
they
allow
for
the
maintenance
of
existing
social
ties
and
formation
of
new
connections.
A
characteristic
of
the
early
research
on
CMC
and
virtual
communities
in
particular
is
the
assumption
that
individuals
using
this
system
will
be
connecting
to
those
outside
their
pre-‐existing
social
group
or
location,
which
liberates
individuals
to
form
communities
around
shared
interests,
as
opposed
to
shared
geography
(Wellman,
1996).
37
The
relationships
present
in
online
communities
are
instances
of
what
are
known
as
"weak
ties".
Weak
ties
are
"are
acquaintances
who
are
not
part
of
your
closest
social
circle,
and
as
such
have
the
power
to
act
as
a
bridge
between
your
social
cluster
and
someone
else's"
(Cervini,
2003).
Weak
ties
created
at
random
in
this
way
lead
to
"supernodes",
individuals
with
many
more
ties
than
other
resources.
Some
preliminary
empirical
studies
have
been
conducted
to
measure
the
extent
to
which
users
use
SNS
to
maintain
existing
ties
or
to
form
new
ones.
Facebook-‐
specific
studies
indicate
that
certain
kinds
of
Facebook
use
appear
to
facilitate
maintenance
and
formation
of
social
capital
of
all
kinds.
A
study
conducted
by
Ellison,
Steinfield
and
Lampe
(2006)
indicates
that
Facebook
is
used
by
its
users
to
make
new
friends,
as
well
as
keep
in
touch
with
old
acquaintances.
3.1.4
Identity,
self-presentation
and
contextualizing
in
SNS
In
her
ethnographic
work
examining
self-‐presentation
and
social
connections
among
Friendster
users,
boyd
(2004)
notes
that
users
have
a
variety
of
motivations
for
using
the
website,
including
connecting
with
old
friends,
meeting
new
acquaintances,
dating
and
furthering
professional
networks.
In
one
of
the
few
studies
to
examine
this
new
form
of
online
communication,
Donath
and
boyd
(2004)
point
out
that
one
of
the
chief
hallmarks
of
these
sites
is
that
links
between
individuals
are
“mutual,
public,
unnuanced
and
decontextualised”
(p.
38
72).
In
the
SNS
examined,
public
displays
of
connections
serve
to
warrant,
or
indicate
the
unreliability
of
the
information
provided
in
the
online
profiles.
Along
with
the
features
of
online
communities,
members
of
SNS
also
have
to
create
and
interpret
context,
and
learn
now
to
“converse
through
profiles”
(boyd
&
Heer,
2006,
p.5).
Due
to
the
decontextualised
nature
of
the
online
virtual
environment,
members
rely
on
the
interactions
with
other
members
and
digital
bodies,
which
are
artifacts
of
digital
performance,
in
order
to
create
the
context
of
a
digital
environment.
Network
effect
is
also
influential
in
this
context
as
members
of
SNS
usually
join
after
receiving
multiple
invitations
from
different
friends.
boyd’s
study
also
concludes
that
SNS
such
as
Friendster
and
MySpace
support
homophily,
where
members
are
generally
from
the
same
sub-‐groups
and
also
that
internal
homophily
is
reinforced
when
members
invite
their
friends
whom
they
think
will
fit
in
with
the
image
they
want
to
portray
in
the
online
social
networking
websites,
people
similar
to
themselves
(Turchi,
2007).
The
concept
of
negotiating
an
unknown
audience
is
an
important
one
that
affects
how
members
of
SNS
decide
to
portray
themselves
to
members
of
the
different
social
groups.
According
to
boyd
(2006),
the
process
of
developing
and
interpreting
context
is
simultaneously
a
foundation
for
communication
and
a
conversation
itself.
Conversations
occur
when
people
engage
others.
By
altering
their
profiles
to
39
engage
other
users,
SNS
users
are
setting
the
platform
for
conversation
and
communicating.
Profiles
are
effectively
public
performances
that
are
limited
by
the
level
of
privacy
set
by
the
users;
they
are
used
both
as
conversation
starters
as
well
as
the
conversation
among
users.
Also,
other
parts
of
the
profile,
such
as
the
comments
written
by
friends
and
posted
publicly
for
other
members
to
view
and
the
use
of
photographs
and
videos
also
feature
prominently
in
SNS
such
as
Facebook.
These
different
elements
make
up
one’s
profile
online
and
the
sum
of
the
information
of
these
tools
forms
the
basis
of
communication
and
conversation
in
SNS.
For
youths,
participating
in
SNS
helps
in
strengthening
their
cultural
identities,
teaching
them
to
navigate
both
the
public
and
private
dimensions
of
their
racial
lives.
Much
like
the
world
offline,
participating
in
online
cultural
communities
help
youths
develop
a
healthy
sense
of
racial
identity,
what
psychologists
argue
is
necessary
to
resist
the
effects
of
racism
(Bryne,
2008).
Another
study
revealed
that
while
younger
teenagers
relish
the
opportunities
to
recreate
continuously
a
highly-‐decorated,
stylistically-‐elaborate
identity,
older
teenagers
favour
a
plain
aesthetic
that
foregrounds
their
links
to
others,
thus
expressing
a
notion
of
identity
lived
through
authentic
relationships
(Livingstone,
2008).
Such
findings
aid
in
understanding
why
youths
portray
themselves
the
way
they
do
in
SNS.
Impression
management
is
very
much
used
in
SNS.
Some
studies
have
lent
credence
to
the
importance
of
impression
management
and
how
it
consciously
40
being
applied
in
SNS.
Evans,
Gosling
and
Carroll
(2008)
demonstrated
that
various
profile
elements
are
effective
in
conveying
information
about
the
personality
of
the
profile
owner
and
that
several
specific
elements
of
profiles
are
associated
with
increased
or
diminished
levels
of
rater-‐target
impression
agreement.
How
users
manage
self
presentation
while
maintaining
social
relationships
in
heterogeneous
networks
(DiMicco
&
Millen,
2007)
is
thus
an
important
factor
to
consider
when
discussing
impression
management
in
SNS.
Profile
elements
are
important
in
SNS
as
they
present
an
image
to
the
people
in
their
Friends
List,
which
may
consist
of
a
mix
of
family
members,
classmates
and
colleagues.
The
emphasis
of
some
profile
elements
has
been
examined
in
a
study
on
narcissism.
It
was
found
that
narcissism
is
manifested
in
SNS
and
is
measured
by
the
quantity
of
social
interaction;
main
photo
self-‐
promotion
and
main
photo
attractiveness
(Buffardi
&
Campbell,
2008).
Some
profile
elements
may
predict
friendship
links
(Lampe,
Ellison
&
Steinfield,
2006)
and
this
is
significant
because
how
the
users
perceive
themselves
will
be
very
likely
how
their
close
acquaintances
view
them
(Gosling,
Gaddis
&
Vazaire,
2007).
Therefore,
opinions
of
friends
matter
in
a
SNS
environment;
users
depend
on
SNS
for
recommendations
and
validating
of
opinions
(Geyer,
et
al.,
2008).
A
study
conducted
supports
this,
revealing
that
friends’
comments
overrode
self-‐
comments,
supporting
warranting
theory
exclusively.
This
will
have
implications
on
the
potential
effects
of
social
comments
on
a
variety
of
new
information
41
forms
(Walther,
et
al.,
2009).
Emphasizing
certain
profile
elements
and
revealing
certain
personal
information
help
shape
the
opinions
of
other
users
of
oneself
in
an
SNS
environment,
which
may
explain
why
some
users
spend
more
customizing
their
SNS
profiles.
From
the
literature
review
conducted
thus
far,
we
can
surmise
that
there
are
existing
areas
of
research
about
SNS
although
their
findings
may
be
preliminary.
However,
SNS
may
be
more
interdisciplinary
than
the
other
areas
of
research
for
CMC
as
it
is
an
amalgamation
of
the
various
applications
of
CMC.
This
in
turn
translates
into
opportunities
to
address
the
gaps
in
terms
of
research.
Furthermore,
the
large
number
of
highly
embedded
users,
a
unique-‐
geographically-‐bound
target
audience,
high
visibility
of
the
technology,
and
widespread
public
concern
regarding
the
use
and
abuse
of
SNS,
merits
further
research
to
be
conducted
on
this
phenomenon.
3.2
Framing
policy-relevant
research
In
the
context
of
new
media
research,
while
particular
systems
come
and
go,
how
youths
engage
through
SNS
will
provide
long
lasting
insights
into
identity
formation,
status
negotiation
and
peer
to
peer
sociality
(boyd,
2008).
This
is
because
SNS
has
combined
elements
of
the
Internet
previously
studied
in
singularity
on
one
platform
while
introducing
new
elements
of
Web
2.0.
However,
this
is
not
to
say
that
researching
on
SNS
is
without
its
challenges,
especially
when
looking
at
youths
and
SNS,
an
area
with
potential
policy
relevancy.
42
The
idea
of
responsibility
have
caused
concern;
not
only
how
to
apportion
such
responsibilities,
but
also
how
to
ensure
coordination
across
them.
Within
this,
a
key
point
of
contestation
is
how
far
to
devolve
responsibility
from
the
state
to
the
industry
(via
self
regulation)
or
to
the
individual
citizen
(mainly
parents)
(Livingstone
&
Bober,
2006).
To
answer
this,
research
needs
to
be
conducted
to
review
the
current
situation
now
and
whether
the
Singapore
government’s
current
light
touch
approach
(MDA,
2010)
is
enough
or
if
greater
enforcement
and
policing
is
required.
While
conducting
research,
caution
is
needed
to
prevent
supporting
the
relentlessly
optimistic
view
of
some
literature
that
ignores
the
downsides
of
the
online
medium.
Also,
a
realistic
understanding
of
youths
is
required,
to
avoid
assuming
a
wholly
positive
or
negative
view
of
their
critical
intelligence
and
social
responsibility.
The
anxieties
of
some
parents
about
what
their
teenage
children
may
do
or
encounter
online
are
exacerbated
by
the
parents’
own
lack
of
ICT
skills
(Holloway
&
Valentine,
2003).
This
needs
to
be
acknowledged
to
prevent
falling
into
the
fallacy
of
cyberpanic.
There
may
be
some
dissonance
between
youths’
perceived
danger
online
and
their
parents,
caregivers
and
educators
(Herring,
2008).
This
suggests
that
while
looking
at
the
responses
of
the
majority
of
youths,
the
perceptions
of
the
43
minority
youths,
while
constituting
a
small
number,
may
warrant
a
close
inspection
as
well.
Chapter
4:
Privacy,
social
network
theory
and
information
disclosure
Based
on
the
literature
review
thus
far
on
youths
and
SNS,
it
can
be
gleaned
that
youths’
safety
on
SNS
is
of
concern
to
parents,
educators
and
the
governments,
who
are
concerned
that
youths
may
be
revealing
too
much
of
their
personal
information
online.
With
the
rising
adoption
of
emerging
technologies
such
as
SNS,
privacy
is
recognized
as
a
growing
concern,
but
privacy
studies
are
generally
limited
by
the
lack
of
conceptual
frameworks
(Palen
&
Dourish,
2003).
4.1
Concept
of
privacy
Westin
(1967)
posits
that
people
have
a
need
for
privacy,
which
together
with
other
needs,
allow
us
to
lead
well-‐adjusted
lives
with
others.
Westin’s
concept
of
privacy
is
both
dynamic
(continually
adjusted
to
suit
momentary
needs
and
role
requirements)
as
well
as
non-‐monotonic
(there
can
be
too
little,
too
much
or
sufficient
privacy).
It
is
important
to
note
that
Westin’s
concept
of
privacy
is
neither
a
self-‐sufficient
state
nor
an
end
in
itself,
but
rather,
it
is
a
means
of
achieving
the
overall
end
of
self-‐realization.
Westin’s
theory
suggests
four
functions
of
privacy
–
solitude,
intimacy,
anonymity
and
reserve
(1967).
An
indicator
of
Westin’s
influence
in
his
contribution
to
privacy
theory
is
his
development
of
scales
to
measure
privacy.
The
robustness
of
Westin’s
insight
44
into
the
culturally
universal
aspects
of
privacy
and
the
meaningfulness
of
the
concept
of
privacy
in
describing
behavior
has
received
supported
from
other
researchers
(Altman,
1977;
Klopfer
&Rubenstein,
1977).
Altman
(1975)
value-‐
adds
to
the
discussion
of
privacy
theory
by
explaining
the
concept
of
privacy
as
a
process
of
regulating
levels
of
social
interaction.
Both
Altman
and
Westin
take
into
account
how
individuals
and
groups
control
access
to
themselves;
that
privacy
is
a
dynamic
concept.
They
also
agree
that
privacy
can
take
on
various
forms
that
are
culturally
specific.
The
difference
between
Altman’s
and
Westin’s
theories
on
privacy
lies
in
how
Altman’s
theory
is
relatively
inclusive
of
the
privacy
phenomena
while
Westin’s
theory
focuses
more
on
information
privacy.
As
this
study
pertains
to
information
disclosure
on
Facebook,
Westin’s
privacy
measures
are
arguably
more
relevant
and
applicable.
On
a
psychological
level,
privacy
provides
opportunities
for
self-‐exploration
and
experimentation,
which
aids
in
the
development
of
individuality
(Westin,
1967).
It
provides
experiences
which
support
normal
psychological
functioning
of
stable
interpersonal
relationships
as
well
as
personal
development.
When
privacy
is
invaded
or
violated,
it
is
lost.
Invasions
and
violations
of
privacy
may
result
in
one’s
personal
information
ending
up
in
the
wrong
hands.
The
detriment
incurred
varies,
depending
on
the
content
of
the
information
(Margulis,
1979).
Individuals
who
have
lost
their
privacy
may
face
stigmatization,
where
they
are
accorded
lower
status
and
face
discrimination
45
and
prejudice
(Crocker,
Major
&
Steele,
1998).
Therefore
the
concept
of
privacy
is
intricately
linked
to
information
disclosure.
Privacy,
traditionally
defined
as,
the
‘interest
individuals
have
in
sustaining
personal
space
free
from
interference
by
other
people
and
organizations’
(Tavani,
1999),
has
attracted
many
theories
and
definitions
in
the
online
context.
Such
elastic
and
sometimes
vague
definitions
stem
from
the
increased
need
for
disclosure
online
due
to
the
nature
of
the
Internet
and
have
raised
a
number
of
privacy
concerns
Westin
conducted
surveys
in
the
1980s,
which
found
that
the
public’s
concerns
about
privacy
threats
have
increased
dramatically
since
the
1960s,
with
almost
half
of
the
survey
respondents
reporting
that
by
the
end
of
the
decade
that
they
were
“very
concerned
about
threats
to
their
personal
privacy.”
Westin
then
classified
his
survey
respondents
into
three
categories:
privacy
fundamentalists
(people
who
are
very
concerned
about
their
privacy);
privacy
pragmatists
(people
who
are
concerned
about
their
privacy
but
are
willing
to
trade
some
of
it
for
something
beneficial)
and
privacy
unconcerned
(people
who
are
unconcerned
about
threats
to
their
privacy)
(Kamaraguru
&
Cranor
2005).
By
2003,
the
number
of
privacy
pragmatists
had
risen
by
10
percent
to
64
percent
of
those
surveyed.
At
the
same
time,
privacy
unconcerneds
dropped
from
22
percent
to
10
percent
(Taylor,
2003).
This
shift
towards
privacy
46
pragmatism
may
reflect
a
paradigm
shift
in
privacy
perceptions
and
warrants
further
research,
especially
for
the
online
environment,
where
tradeoffs
for
privacy
may
come
in
various
forms.
4.2
Social
network
theory
and
privacy
For
this
study,
the
concept
of
privacy
is
studied
in
the
context
of
the
social
network
theory.
The
relationship
between
privacy
and
social
network
is
multi-‐
faceted.
Sometimes,
we
want
our
information
to
be
known
by
a
small
circle
of
close
friends
and
not
by
strangers;
under
other
circumstances
we
reveal
personal
information
to
anonymous
strangers,
but
not
to
close
friends.
Previous
social
network
studies
touched
upon
the
relevance
of
relations
of
different
depths
and
strengths
in
social
network
(Granovetter,
1973;
1983)
and
the
importance
of
weak
ties
in
the
flow
of
information
across
different
nodes
in
a
network.
Network
theory
has
also
been
used
to
explore
how
distant
nodes
can
get
interconnected
through
relatively
few
random
ties
(Milgram,
1967,1977;
Watts,
2003).
The
application
of
social
network
theory
to
information
disclosure,
and
by
association,
privacy
choices
in
online
social
networks,
indicates
differences
between
offline
and
online
social
networks.
Offline
social
networks
are
made
up
of
weak
or
strong
ties,
which
are
on
a
continuum
in
terms
of
how
close
and
intimate
the
relationships
are.
Online
social
networks
break
down
the
nuanced
offline
connections
to
simplistic
online
47
relationships
–
one
is
either
a
friend
or
not
(boyd,
2004).
The
paradigm
of
friendships
changes
online,
where
thousands
of
SNS
users
may
be
classified
as
friends
of
friends
and
have
access
one’s
personal
information.
This
results
in
an
imaginary
community
of
online
social
networks
(Anderson,
1983).
Online
social
networks
are
also
more
leveled,
as
the
same
information
is
accessible
to
more
friends
whom
one
is
close
to
at
various
levels
but
such
nuances
are
not
explicated
online.
This
contributes
to
a
paradox
when
it
comes
to
privacy.
While
privacy
is
conducive
and
necessary
for
intimacy
(Gerstein,
1984),
intimacy
includes
the
revealing
of
private
information
to
some
but
not
to
others,
trust
decreases
within
an
online
social
network.
Intimacy
online
refers
to
the
sharing
of
personal
information
with
large
numbers
of
offline
friends
and
strangers
(Gross
&
Acquisiti,
2005).
Thus,
the
chances
for
meaningful
interaction
are
mildly
augmented
online,
while
the
potential
to
access
the
information
of
others
is
significantly
increased.
Therefore,
online
social
networks
have
a
significant
impact
on
privacy,
as
the
information
flows
amongst
the
nodes
may
make
our
offline
personal
information
accessible
to
more
people
whom
we
are
not
close
to
and
whom
we
may
not
want
to
share
such
personal
information
with.
4.3
Online
information
disclosure
and
privacy
An
area
of
concern
for
parents
and
educators
is
the
level
of
personal
information
48
that
youths
disclose
online,
which
is
related
to
youths’
perceptions
of
online
privacy.
While
youths
share,
and
SNS
encourages
sharing
information
on
many
levels
and
many
forms,
perhaps
more
thought
should
be
given
to
how
such
personal
information
might
be
used.
This
concern
has
received
considerable
coverage
in
the
media,
with
cases
such
as
US
police
authorities
charging
three
men
for
sexually
assaulting
teenagers
they
found
through
MySpace
(Stafford,
2006),
which
raises
further
concerns
about
the
vulnerability
of
youths
online.
In
response
to
this
general
concern,
some
studies
have
examined
information
disclosure
in
SNS.
In
the
context
of
this
study,
information
disclosure
is
the
amount
(quantity)
and
degree
of
sensitive
information
released
by
individual
users
about
themselves
(De
Souza,
2009).
The
disclosure
of
personal
information
considers
how
online
social
connections
are
much
more
lax
in
this
aspect
than
offline
(Gross
&
Acquisti,
2005).
Personal
and
sensitive
information
is
often
publicly
provided
to
the
nodes
in
networks,
to
people
who
are
barely
friends.
Huffaker
and
Calvert
‘s
2005
study
also
found
that
teenage
‘bloggers’
revealed
a
considerable
amount
of
personal
information.
This
included
first
name
(70%),
age
(67%)
and
contact
information
(61%),
in
the
form
of
email
address,
instant
messenger
user
name
or
a
link
to
a
personal
web
page.
Less
disclosed
information
included
birth
date
(39%)
and
full
name
(20%).
Relationship
information
was
also
provided
in
49%
of
blogs.
49
Several
reasons
have
been
offered
as
to
why
users
reveal
information
about
themselves
online.
One
reason
is
signaling
(providing
selective
information
to
present
oneself
in
a
positive
light),
and
some
SNS
users
view
the
benefit
of
this
outweighing
the
costs
of
possible
privacy
invasions
(Donath
&
boyd,
2004).
Some
Facebook
youth
users
may
share
certain
personal
information
to
create
a
particular
online
image.
Another
reason
for
personal
information
disclosure
raised
in
the
literature
is
peer
pressure
or
herding
behaviour.
Govani
and
Pashley
(2006)
suggested
youths’
peers
and
friends
online
share
certain
types
of
information
that
the
other
youths
may
feel
obligated
to
do
so
as
well.
However,
not
all
literature
points
towards
youths
revealing
too
much
of
their
personal
information
online,
thus
exposing
themselves
to
danger.
An
extensive
content
analysis
of
MySpace
profile
pages
revealed
that
the
problem
of
personal
information
disclosure
on
SNS
may
not
be
as
widespread
as
many
assume
and
that
the
majority
of
adolescents
are
using
SNS
responsibly
(Hinduja
&
Patchin,
2008).
Also,
many
of
the
youths’
close
online
relationships
are
with
members
of
family
or
friends
(Wolak,
Mitchell
&
Finkelhor,
2002).
In
fact,
most
youths
are
more
concerned
about
customizing
and
making
their
SNS
profiles
attractive
than
revealing
of
their
personal
information.
(Livingstone,
2008).
50
So
far,
while
mixed,
the
results
for
online
personal
information
disclosure
for
SNS
indicate
that
most
youths
are
using
SNS
responsibly
and
are
aware
of
the
its
privacy
settings.
4.4
SNS
and
privacy
Stranger
danger
is
very
probable
on
some
SNS,
given
that
even
non-‐users
of
SNS
are
able
to
search
and
view
profiles
of
some
SNS
users
who
have
set
privacy
viewing
settings
to
public
instead
of
‘friends-‐only’.
As
younger
and
younger
children
take
up
the
use
of
these
sites,
there
have
been
some
attempts
to
improve
privacy.
For
example
in
Facebook,
youths
with
ages
set
at
14–15
years
have
a
default
setting
of
private
(only
online
friends
can
view
this).
Other
safeguards
employed
by
SNS
such
as
MySpace
include
how
users
over
18
are
unable
to
add
users
whose
ages
are
set
at
14–15
years
as
friends
unless
they
know
the
user’s
full
name
or
email
address.
However,
youths
do
lie
about
their
age
to
bypass
restrictions
and
there
is
no
verification
procedure
by
MySpace
to
ensure
the
true
ages
of
its
users.
The
implications
on
privacy
associated
with
online
social
networking
depend
on
how
the
information
revealed
online
allows
for
one
to
be
identified,
the
information’s
possible
recipients,
and
possible
uses
of
the
information.
Even
SNS
that
do
not
expose
identities
may
provide
enough
information
to
identify
the
profile’s
owner.
Information
revelation
can
thus
work
in
two
ways:
by
allowing
51
others
to
identify
a
pseudonymous
profile
through
previous
knowledge
of
one’s
characteristics
or
traits;
or
by
allowing
inference
of
previously
unknown
characteristics
or
traits
(Gross
&
Acquisiti,
2005).
Vie
(2007)
posits
that
youths
may
feel
a
false
sense
of
security
about
their
online
personae,
leading
them
to
portray
themselves
online
in
ways
that
inaccurately
represent
their
offline
selves,
which
may
incur
serious
repercussions.
Vie’s
proposal
of
familiarizing
parents
and
educators
with
SNS
to
help
youths
understand
the
implications
of
their
SNS
use
is
also
echoed
by
De
souza
and
Dick
(2008).
Another
perceived
perpetrator
of
privacy
risks
is
SNS
such
as
Facebook
exposing
user
data
to
third-‐party
developers
(Strater
&
Richter,
2007;
Felt
&
Evans,
2008).
More
often
than
not,
users
of
SNS
do
not
read
the
privacy
policy
when
they
sign
up.
A
balance
needs
to
be
struck
between
protecting
the
privacy
of
the
SNS
users
and
not
stifling
the
creativity
and
freedom
of
the
third
party
and
SNS
developers
(Sithigh,
2008).
Therefore,
while
it
is
pertinent
to
identify
the
privacy,
surveillance
and
legal
issues
that
are
SNS
related,
we
also
need
to
understand
that
the
cause
of
concern
of
the
violation
of
privacy
is
the
feeling
of
being
exposed
and
invaded
(boyd,
2008).
This
feeling
may
be
a
price
that
we
have
to
pay
to
enjoy
social
convergence.
52
4.4.1
SNS
privacy
policies
and
settings
When
registering
with
Facebook
or
MySpace,
users
must
agree
to
the
terms
of
service
and
privacy
policies
when
setting
up
their
online
profile.
These
terms
include
how
and
when
their
profile
information
is
collected,
how
their
usage
is
tracked
and
how
SNS
use
the
profile
information
collected
(Metzger,
2004).
These
privacy
policies
also
inform
how
other
users
can
view
our
profiles
and
when
and
how
the
SNS
can
disclose
information
to
a
third
party.
The
privacy
policies
are
mandatory
and
must
be
accepted
while
registering
for
the
SNS.
Different
SNS
also
have
different
policies
about
their
users’
default
profile
privacy
settings.
Facebook’s
default
settings
allow
for
profiles
to
only
be
viewed
by
registered
Facebook
users.
Facebook’s
privacy
settings
also
allow
for
users
to
change
their
default
settings
to
limit
the
viewing
of
their
profiles,
or
certain
aspects
of
their
profiles,
resulting
in
different
users
having
access
to
limited
parts
of
their
profiles.
When
users
use
this
function,
they
ensure
that
only
users
whom
they
accept
as
friends
will
be
allowed
to
view
their
profiles
and
how
different
users
have
different
access
to
different
aspects
of
their
personal
information.
MySpace’s
default
settings
allow
all
other
registered
users
to
view
the
profiles
of
others.
However,
like
Facebook,
users
are
allowed
to
change
their
settings
so
that
only
their
friends
can
see
their
profiles.
This
has
implications
for
how
youths
set
their
Facebook
privacy
settings
as
well
as
the
types
of
personal
information
youths
disclose
online.
53
4.5
Parents
and
online
privacy
Unlike
their
youths,
parents
are
mostly
not
digital
natives.
Thus,
they
may
be
unfamiliar
with
the
workings
of
SNS
and
are
unaware
of
their
children’s
activities
online.
Parents
may
also
be
unaware
of
the
actual
risks
in
SNS
even
if
they
are
aware
of
the
activities
their
youths
are
engaged
in
online.
Most
of
the
literature
supports
greater
involvement
on
the
part
of
parents
in
monitoring
their
youths’
activities
online
(Livingstone
&
Bovill,
2001).
Parents
may
not
be
paying
sufficient
attention
to
what
their
youths
are
doing
online,
for
a
number
of
reasons.
Firstly,
parents
may
lack
the
technological
knowledge
and
technical
skills
to
provide
proper
supervision
(Wallace,
1999;
Livingstone
&
Bovill,
2001;
Davidson
&
Martellozzo,
2005).
Secondly,
they
may
choose
to
respect
their
youths’
privacy
online,
failing
to
recognise
that
SNS
are
actually
public
domains.
Thirdly,
they
are
simply
unaware
of
the
related
dangers
(Willard,
2007).
Therefore,
it
is
not
necessarily
a
case
of
apathy
from
the
parents,
but
rather,
they
may
not
know
where
to
begin
to
guide
their
youths
on
online
privacy.
Parents
may
thus
end
up
developing
a
negative
impression
of
the
personal
information
sharing
their
youths
conduct
online,
thinking
that
their
children
are
ignorant
of
the
risks,
do
not
care
about
privacy
or
display
poor
judgment
(Abril,
2008).
Understanding
how
SNS
are
utilized
by
youths
is
an
area
that
behooves
further
research.
The
use
of
SNS
occupies
a
significant
amount
of
youths’
time,
is
54
ubiquitous,
rapidly
expanding
and
are
used
for
various
purposes.
This
has
implications
for
youths’
levels
of
personal
information
disclosure
online
and
their
online
privacy
perceptions
as
they
are
already
very
much
immersed
in
the
online
environment.
This
study
attempts
to
provide
some
information
on
youths’
SNS
behavior
that
might
be
of
heuristic
value
to
educators
and
parents.
4.6
Youths
and
online
privacy
Youths
today
are
digital
natives
who
are
adept
with,
but
are
at
the
same
time
vulnerable
to
the
risks
posed
by
new
technologies.
Youths
who
are
online
continue
to
reveal
personal
information,
despite
privacy
groups’
advice
on
not
revealing
personal
details
to
strangers
or
new
online
friends
(McCandlish,
2002;
Govani
&
Pashley,
2006).
It
is
postulated
that
youths
experience
a
privacy
paradox,
where
they
freely
provide
their
personal
information
online
but
are
surprised
when
their
parents
read
the
information
they
post
online
(Barnes,
2006).
Studies
have
shown
that
youths’
disclosure
online
is
significantly
predicated
on
the
need
to
be
popular
(Christofides,
Muise
&
Desmarais,
2009).
Moscardelli
and
Divine’s
2007
study
indicated
that
heightening
youths’
concern
for
their
privacy
lead
to
a
greater
possibility
that
they
will
utilize
more
privacy-‐protecting
behaviors.
This
means
that
the
role
of
parents
and
educators
in
heightening
youths’
privacy
awareness
will
translate
into
more
desirable
privacy-‐protecting
behaviors
and
that
guiding
youths
on
protecting
their
privacy
does
reap
results.
55
Strategies
employed
by
youths
to
protect
their
privacy
online
include:
exclusion
of
personal
information,
using
private
email
messages
and
altering
the
default
privacy
settings
(Young
&
Quan-‐Haase,
2009),
or
adjusting
their
profile
visibility
and
using
nicknames
(Tufekci,
2008).
In
the
Singapore
context,
a
study
on
adolescence
disclosure
revealed
that
Singaporean
parents
tend
to
underestimate
their
teenagers’
engagement
in
risky
Internet
behavior
and
overestimate
the
amount
of
parental
monitoring
regarding
Internet
safety
at
home.
It
recommended
that
parental
monitoring
in
Singapore
needs
to
be
reconceptualized
and
that
parents
need
to
improve
communicating
to
their
teenagers
regarding
Internet
use
(Liau,
Khoo
and
Ang,
2008).
Therefore,
this
study
supports
the
need
to
understand
Singapore
parents
together
with
their
youths
to
ascertain
if
there
exists
a
difference
in
privacy
perceptions
between
the
two
groups.
4.7
Research
Questions
Based
on
the
literature
review
of
youths,
privacy
as
well
as
SNS,
this
paper
shall
examine
the
concerns
linked
with
the
rise
SNS
usage;
how
youths
are
representing
themselves
online
and
determine
how
savvy
youths
are
when
it
comes
to
protecting
themselves
against
online
predators
from
their
levels
of
personal
information
disclosure
in
Facebook.
56
Parents
require
knowledge
on
how
their
youths
perceive
online
safety
and
the
amount
of
personal
information
they
disclose
online
before
they
can
guide
their
youths
against
online
predatory
practices.
Thus,
this
paper
seeks
to
address
the
following
research
questions:
RQ1:
Do
Singaporean
youths
adopt
privacy
safeguards
in
Facebook?
RQ2:
What
is
the
extent
and
nature
of
information
disclosure
by
Singapore
youths
in
SNS?
RQ3:
To
what
extent
are
Singaporean
parents
aware
of
the
nature
of
personal
information
disclosure
by
their
teenage
children
in
Facebook?
RQ4:
How
safe
do
Singaporean
parents
perceive
their
teenage
children
to
be
in
Facebook?
RQ5:
Are
there
disparities
between
youths’
and
parents’
perceptions
of
the
risk
of
personal
information
disclosure
vis
a
vis
Facebook?
Chapter
5:
Methodology
5.1
Selecting
research
methods
Communications
research
utilizes
many
applied
social
research
methods.
While
there
are
many
ways
of
classifying
applied
social
research,
Rossi
and
Whyte
(1983)
have
identified
three
broad
categories:
descriptive,
analytical
and
evaluation.
57
Descriptive
applied
social
research
is
the
most
basic
of
the
three
types
of
research.
It
makes
extensive
use
of
sample
surveys
and
performs
an
important
‘intelligence
and
monitoring’
function
(Bulmer,
1982).
Social
surveys
provide
policymakers
with
a
wealth
of
descriptive
data,
which
cover
demographic
characteristics,
economic
factors
and
social
trends.
Analytical
studies
go
beyond
simple
description
in
their
attempt
to
model
empirically
social
phenomena
under
investigation.
Applied
research
is
defined
in
terms
of
intention
and
not
outcome.
Analytical
research
is
usually
problem-‐
oriented
and
is
used
to
“illuminate
a
problem
in
such
a
way
as
to
permit
action
to
be
taken
to
change
the
situation
revealed”
(Bulmer,
1982).
The
scope
of
research
for
this
study
encompasses
of
youths’
perceptions
of
privacy
and
their
level
of
self-‐disclosure
online;
as
well
as
their
parents’
level
of
knowledge
of
privacy
and
the
online
habits
of
their
children.
The
data
collected
for
analysis
cover
both
descriptive
as
well
as
analytical
social
research.
Results
of
this
study
will
provide
information
for
policy
makers
as
well
as
educators
and
parents
on
the
approach
to
adopt
when
guiding
youths
in
SNS.
5.1.1
Research
framework:
Mixed
methods
research
Mixed
methods
research
was
first
used
in
the
social
sciences
to
describe
a
form
of
multiple
operationalism
or
convergent
validation
(Campbell,
1956;
Campbell
&
Friske,
1959).
At
that
time,
mixed
methods
research
was
used
largely
for
58
multiple
data-‐collection
technologies
designed
to
measure
a
single
concept
or
construct
(data
triangulation).
For
many
researchers,
mixed
methods
research
is
restricted
to
the
use
of
multiple
data-‐gathering
techniques
to
investigate
the
same
phenomena.
This
is
interpreted
as
a
means
of
mutual
confirmation
of
measures
and
validation
of
findings
(Jick,
1983;
Knafl
&
Breitmayer,
1989;
Leedy,
2001;
Mitchell,
1986;
Sohier,
1988;
Webb,
et
al.,
1981).
Fielding
and
Fielding
(1986,
p.
31)
suggested
that
the
important
feature
of
mixed
methods
research
is
not
the
simple
combination
of
different
kinds
of
data
but
the
attempt
to
relate
them
so
as
to
counteract
the
threats
to
validity
identified
in
each.
Hammersley
(1996)
suggested
a
tripartite
classification
of
the
ways
in
which
researchers
employ
different
types
of
the
data
in
the
process
of
interpreting
their
data:
(a)
Triangulation:
where
one
type
of
data
(usually
quantitative)
is
used
to
corroborate
another
type
of
data
(qualitative)
(b)
Facilitation:
where
collecting
one
type
of
data
facilitates
the
collection
of
another
type
of
data
(c)
Complementarity:
when
two
different
sets
of
data
are
employed
to
address
different
but
complementary
aspects
of
a
research
59
For
this
study,
the
content
analysis
and
online
survey
aspects
of
the
research
are
treated
as
complementary;
the
survey
is
used
to
examine
associations
and
generalizability
to
the
parent
and
youth
population
whilst
content
analysis
is
used
to
understand
social
processes
at
a
micro-‐level.
Complementarity
also
addresses
how
each
dataset
is
interpreted
in
relation
to
the
conceptualization
of
the
research
question
and
method
by
which
the
results
are
obtained.
Mixed
methods
research
can
also
be
used
to
address
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
different
forms
of
quantitative
research
within
the
same
study
(Hewson,
2006,
2007).
When
mixed
methods
research
is
brought
into
the
online
context,
it
allows
for
the
observation
of
behavior
in
online
environments
which
cannot
be
replicated
offline.
Thus,
mixed
methods
for
Internet
research
allow
for
a
research
strategy
that
combines
different
approaches
in
a
single
study
(Hewson,
2007).
The
Internet
supports
mixed
methods
research
as
it
provides
a
conducive
environment
for
document
analysis,
allowing
for
ready
access
to
large
volumes
of
data
online
at
anytime,
thus
easing
and
expediting
the
data
collection
for
content
analysis.
Other
advantages
include
the
ease
of
lengthy
and
costly
data
collection
procedures
by
digitalizing
the
data
collection
process.
Using
certain
instruments
such
as
online
surveys
may
increase
the
response
rate
as
respondents
are
afforded
flexibility
in
terms
of
when
and
where
to
fill
up
the
surveys.
However,
drawbacks
of
the
Internet
also
include
how
I
need
to
confirm
60
the
veracity
of
the
information
collected
during
content
analysis
and
the
surveys
being
timed
out
when
participants
forget
to
complete
the
surveys
while
multi-‐
tasking
when
they
are
online.
Internet-‐mediated
mixed
methods
research
can
be
applied
in
one
of
two
ways:
sequential
or
concurrent
(Creswell,
2003).
The
sequential
approach
is
utilized
for
this
study,
where
content
analysis
is
first
conducted,
after
which
its
results
provide
the
basis
for
constructing
the
questions
for
the
subsequent
survey.
5.1.3
Content
analysis
The
content
analysis
conducted
for
this
study
is
quantitative
and
serves
as
a
precursor
to
the
online
survey.
The
reason
why
content
analysis
preferred
over
other
research
methods
for
this
study
is
because
it
produces
richer
and
more
informative
data,
which
is
imbued
with
the
participants’
own
understandings,
meanings
and
perspectives
(Hewson,
2007).
An
advantage
of
online
content
analysis
is
how
I
have
the
option
of
adopting
a
participant
or
observer
role
and
this
option
complements
the
action-‐research
framework
for
this
study
when
I
not
want
to
be
intrusive
during
data
collection.
5.1.4
Surveys
For
this
study,
the
surveys
of
the
youths
and
their
parents
contribute
to
the
quantitative
component;
a
self-‐completion
online
survey
allows
researchers
to
61
obtain
a
large-‐scale
representative
sample
that
generates
data
to
be
analyzed
statistically.
The
main
advantage
of
self-‐completion
surveys
is
that
a
large
population
can
be
surveyed
relatively
cheaply.
Costs
are
lower
as
interviewers
are
not
used,
and
pre-‐coding
and
computerization
speeds
up
analysis.
Online
surveys
also
allow
for
flexibility
to
the
respondents
who
complete
the
survey
at
a
time
convenient
to
them.
For
this
study,
which
examines
attitudes
and
behaviors
online,
an
online
survey
is
more
suitable
as
compared
to
telephone
and
postal
surveys
as
the
youths
are
already
immersed
in
an
online
environment.
Disadvantages
of
using
the
survey
method
include
low
response
rate
where
some
surveys
do
not
even
achieve
more
than
a
20
per
cent
rate
of
return.
The
response
rate
depends
on
a
variety
of
factors
such
as
the
subject
matter
of
the
survey,
the
target
population
of
the
survey,
the
respondents’
perception
of
the
value
of
the
study
and
the
ease
of
completion
of
the
survey.
The
low
response
rate
does
not
factor
in
the
issue
of
incomplete
surveys,
which
aggravates
the
low
response
rate
for
surveys.
For
online
surveys,
there
is
the
issue
of
multi-‐tasking,
where
youths
and
parents
begin
answering
the
survey
and
move
on
to
doing
other
tasks,
leaving
the
survey
to
run
in
the
background
and
forgetting
to
get
back
to
it,
heightening
the
risk
of
the
low
response
rate.
62
Therefore,
the
disadvantages
have
to
be
taken
into
consideration
when
drawing
up
the
survey
to
minimize
the
effect
of
low
response
rate.
5.1.5
Benefits
of
mixed
methods
research
Quantitative
research
involves
using
a
numerical
approach
to
the
collection
and
analysis
of
data.
This
usually
requires
empirical
studies
using
social
survey
techniques
to
collect
data
from
representative
samples
of
the
population
with
the
aim
of
producing
factual
data
from
which
generalizations
and
characteristics
of
the
society
can
be
created.
Also,
mixed
methods
research
can
increase
the
validity
of
the
results.
Validity
in
a
study
exists
if
the
instruments
used,
in
this
case,
the
surveys
and
the
content
analysis
of
Facebook
profiles,
measure
what
they
set
out
to
measure.
The
results
from
each
method
complement
the
weaknesses
of
the
other
method
and
serves
to
either
concur
and
strengthen
the
validity
of
some
results
obtained,
while
making
sure
that
further
investigation
is
warranted
should
some
of
the
results
of
one
method
contradict
the
results
of
the
other.
The
combination
of
different
types
of
quantitative
research
methods
such
as
surveys
and
content
analysis
for
this
study
will
thus
allow
for
an
assessment
of
youths’
privacy
perceptions
and
self-‐disclosure
practices
in
SNS.
The
results
of
the
surveys
will
be
complemented
by
results
from
the
content
analysis
of
the
youths’
Facebook
profiles
at
the
micro-‐level.
63
Therefore,
for
the
purpose
of
this
study,
content
analysis
of
Singaporean
youths’
Facebook
profiles
and
surveys
for
both
parents
as
well
as
youths
shall
be
employed
for
the
mixed
methods
research
and
conducted
using
the
action
research
framework
of
participatory
research.
5.2
Research
Design
The
research
undertaken
for
this
study
is
of
a
cross-‐sectional
nature,
where
data
collection
is
conducted
on
more
than
one
case
at
a
single
point
in
time
(David
&
Sutton,
2004).
In
cross-‐sectional
data
collection,
the
exploration
of
relationships
and
associations
between
variables
are
carefully
thought
through
and
are
dependent
on
the
literature
review
in
the
previous
chapters
of
this
thesis.
It
is
important
at
the
research
design
phase
to
reiterate
that
the
two
datasets,
obtained
from
the
surveys
and
content
analysis,
are
distinct
and
separate
parts
of
the
research
and
that
each
is
valid
in
it
own
right.
In
the
case
of
this
study,
the
second
survey
phase
of
the
study
depended
upon
the
first
content
analysis
phase
and
that
some
of
the
information
that
were
obtained
from
the
content
analysis
provided
the
contextual
information
about
the
self-‐disclosure
and
online
risk-‐taking
habits
(if
any)
by
the
youths.
64
For
mixed
methods
research,
the
combining
of
different
types
of
quantitative
research
methods
needs
to
be
justified
in
terms
of
how
this
combination
is
best
for
answering
certain
research
questions.
The
research
aims
of
the
two
phases
of
data
collection
were
different.
They
addressed
different
research
questions
and
were
designed
to
generate
data
analyses
that
complemented
each
other.
The
content
analysis
phase,
for
example,
would
be
unable
to
address
questions
about
youths’
and
parents’
attitudes
and
perceptions.
The
surveys
were
therefore
designed
and
carried
out
with
this
additional
purpose
in
mind.
The
surveys
were
also
able
to
provide
insights
into
questions
that
were
raised
in
the
course
of
data
analysis,
thus
helping
to
explain
why
youth
post
some
types
of
information
and
not
others.
Revisiting
the
research
questions
on
page
54
and
55,
RQ1
and
RQ2
can
be
adequately
addressed
using
content
analysis,
which
is
inductive
and
thus
allows
for
exploration
and
a
deeper
insight
into
the
individual
Facebook
profiles.
Further
questions
to
enhance
the
validity
of
the
results
obtained
from
the
content
analysis
of
the
youth’s
Facebook
profiles
can
be
used
as
basis
for
the
formulation
of
the
online
surveys.
RQ3,
RQ4
and
RQ5
can
be
addressed
using
the
online
surveys
for
the
youths
and
parents
as
the
questions
require
deductive
answers,
which
allow
for
greater
reliability
and
generalizability
due
to
its
tighter
focus
(David
&
Sutton,
2004).
65
5.2.1
Content
analysis
One
of
the
debates
when
content
analysis
is
involved
in
the
research
design
is
deciding
if
should
be
considered
qualitative
or
quantitative.
Berelson
(1952)
and
Silverman
(1993)
are
of
the
opinion
that
content
analysis
is
a
quantitative
component
of
research
as
it
is
“objective
and
systematic”.
Other
proponents
of
content
analysis
prefer
to
see
content
analysis
as
a
mixture
of
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
(Smith,
1975).
For
this
study,
content
analysis
is
primarily
quantitative
and
addresses
the
duration
and
frequency
of
the
forms
and
texts.
For
this
study,
where
content
analysis
is
conducted
online,
I
have
the
option
of
adopting
an
observer’s
role
where
I
do
not
want
to
be
intrusive
during
data
collection.
This
helps
to
reduce
bias,
as
I
am
able
to
observe
the
participants
in
their
natural
online
environment
and
unaffected
behavior
in
Facebook.
5.2.1.1
Coding
frame
The
coding
frame
for
the
content
analysis
of
Facebook
profiles
of
Singaporean
youths
is
based
on
RQ1
and
RQ2,
which
seek
to
find
out
how
many
of
Singaporean
youths’
profiles
are
public
or
private
and
the
types
of
information
that
are
revealed
online.
The
types
of
information
range
from
their
names
and
profile
photos
to
email
addresses,
blog
addresses
or
home
addresses,
as
well
as
further
details
such
as
the
types
of
profile
photos
–
individuals
in
school
uniforms
or
group
photos
with
friends
or
family.
From
the
description
of
the
coding
frame,
both
manifest
and
latent
content
analysis
are
employed,
where
the
66
manifest
content
is
physically
present
and
countable,
vis
a
vis
latent
content
analysis,
where
analysis
is
extended
to
understanding
the
underlying
meaning
of
the
data
(Berelson,
1952).
The
conceptualization
of
the
coding
frame
is
based
partly
on
current
SNS
content
analysis
studies
such
as
the
one
on
MySpace
conducted
by
Patchin
and
Hinduja
(2010).
Beside
existing
studies,
the
categories
of
the
coding
frame
are
derived
from
my
immersion
in
the
Facebook
environment,
identifying
themes
and
dimensions
that
relate
to
the
purpose
of
the
research
and
the
research
questions.
For
the
Facebook
profiles,
specific
words
may
not
make
sense
independently,
therefore
I
was
also
looking
out
for
concepts
of
personal
information
and
self-‐
disclosure.
Such
a
form
of
content
analysis
differs
slightly
from
the
traditional
concept
of
content
analysis,
from
the
way
the
coding
frame
is
derived,
in
terms
of
the
units
or
analysis,
as
well
as
how
content
analysis
is
conducted
–
instead
of
going
through
paragraphs,
content
analysis
in
this
study
is
very
precise
as
information
is
either
present
or
not
in
Facebook
profiles.
This
results
in
lesser
ambiguity
in
the
results
obtained
for
the
content
analysis.
However,
bearing
in
mind
the
weaknesses
of
content
analysis,
it
is
taken
to
be
an
analysis
tool
to
be
complemented
with
online
surveys,
rather
than
an
entire
research
strategy
on
its
own
(Berg,
2004).
67
To
improve
reliability
in
this
study,
the
coding
frame
for
content
analysis
was
kept
simple
and
the
types
of
information
and
concepts
to
look
out
for
were
in
discrete
categories.
I
did
the
coding
process,
which
reduced
bias
or
lack
of
reliability
due
to
the
inter-‐coder
process.
However,
this
entailed
the
possibility
of
introducing
a
myopic
perspective
to
the
study;
to
mitigate
its
effects,
I
set
the
units
of
analysis
to
be
as
neutral
and
value-‐free
as
possible.
Discrete
units
and
concepts
such
as
Private/Public
were
also
used
to
avoid
ambiguity.
The
final
coding
frame
consisted
of
eight
categories
and
specified
codes
for
categories
of
information
such
as
identifying
the
youths’
profile,
personal,
identifying
and
contact
information,
number
of
friends
and
level
of
privacy.
The
coding
frame
also
accounted
for
the
different
types
of
information
disclosure
such
as
real
name,
address,
number
of
photos,
as
well
as
wall
posts’
content
and
general
frequency
of
status
updates.
I
also
noted
the
path
leading
each
youth’s
profile
–
via
friends
or
general
search
for
Secondary
Schools.
5.2.1.2
Sampling
Sampling
on
Facebook
was
conducted
systematically
based
on
the
sample
frame
of
Facebook’s
list
of
users.
This
was
to
ensure
representativeness.
Based
on
other
studies
focusing
on
relationships
in
SNS
networks,
Facebook
users
appear
to
be
clustered
by
school
with
respect
to
their
temporal
messaging
patterns
68
(Golder,
Wilkinson
&
Huberman,
2007),
therefore
I
utilized
the
school
networks
present
in
Facebook
for
my
sampling
frame.
The
period
of
data
collection
for
the
content
analysis
of
Facebook
profiles
was
over
a
week
in
November
2009.
The
coding
frame
had
already
been
created,
though
it
was
subjected
to
minor
modifications
prior
to
the
study,
when
it
was
pre-‐tested
for
50
Facebook
profiles.
This
was
to
prevent
major
modifications
in
the
course
of
the
data
collection
and
ensure
consistency
in
the
results.
In
the
course
of
a
week
in
November
2009,
data
was
collected
from
500
profiles.
Initially
there
were
problems
in
terms
of
accessing
the
demographic
group
of
secondary
school
students.
This
is
due
in
part
to
Facebook’s
search
engine.
When
the
search
term
“secondary
school”
was
entered,
the
filter
“Singapore”
had
to
be
entered
as
well,
as
seen
from
the
screen
capture
below:
Fig
5.1:
Facebook’s
search
engine
69
Also,
from
the
results
above,
only
one
of
the
results
was
a
student
still
in
a
secondary
school
even
though
two
of
them
were
listed
as
under
the
Seng
Kang
Secondary
School
network.
Therefore
it
would
be
inaccurate
to
assume
that
everyone
under
a
Secondary
School
network
in
Facebook
is
currently
a
Secondary
School
student,
which
presented
a
challenge
during
data
collection.
Therefore,
it
was
imperative
to
go
through
the
information
in
each
youth’s
Facebook
profile
to
ascertain
the
school
affiliation
and
whether
the
youth
was
indeed
a
current
secondary
school
student.
Sometimes
it
might
not
be
clear
from
going
through
the
youth’s
profile
information
and
I
had
to
seek
further
verification
by
going
through
the
youth’s
friend
list
to
see
if
most
of
the
youth’s
friends
were
from
secondary
school
networks
or
in
secondary
school
uniforms
which
would
aid
in
confirming
whether
the
youth
was
currently
enrolled
in
a
secondary
school,
as
seen
in
Fig
5.2.
Fig
5.2:
Friends
list
of
a
student
70
In
the
process
of
collecting
Facebook
profiles
of
secondary
school
students,
I
gleaned
a
more
comprehensive
understanding
of
Facebook’s
security
settings
for
minors
–
the
minimum
age
for
a
Facebook
account
is
13
(Facebook.com,
2010).
The
security
settings
in
place
for
minors
who
have
Facebook
accounts
include
disabling
private
message
functions,
posting
comments
on
their
walls
or
viewing
their
personal
information,
thus
preventing
incidences
of
online
harassment
by
strangers.
Also,
the
search
for
secondary
schools
revealed
that
minors
are
not
usually
listed
in
the
first
ten
results
of
the
result
list.
One
had
to
go
through
a
couple
of
pages
of
results
before
encountering
a
secondary
student’s
profile.
Last
but
not
least,
the
results
for
profiles
become
repetitive
after
the
first
100
profiles.
Such
settings
are
probably
part
of
the
safeguards
that
Facebook
has
in
place
to
deter
sexual
predators
from
accessing
minors’
profiles.
Such
safeguards
also
had
implications
for
sampling
when
it
came
to
data
collection
for
content
analysis.
Systematic
probability
sampling
could
not
be
carried
out
due
to
the
repetition
of
results.
I
tried
to
circumvent
the
problem
by
going
to
the
Facebook
pages
of
Secondary
Schools.
However,
it
was
discovered,
as
shown
in
Fig
5.3,
that
most
of
the
Facebook
users
who
joined
the
Facebook
groups
and
pages
of
secondary
schools
were
not
its
current
students,
but
rather,
its
alumni.
However,
this
was
not
a
fruitless
exercise
as
I
managed
to
utilize
this
channel
later
for
the
dissemination
of
the
online
surveys.
71
Fig
5.3:
A
Secondary
school’s
Facebook
page
In
spite
of
the
challenges
faced,
the
data
collection
for
the
content
analysis
of
Singaporean
secondary
students’
Facebook
profiles
was
handled
in
a
systematic
manner.
I
began
with
a
generic
“secondary
school”
search
with
“Singapore”
as
a
filter
from
Facebook’s
search
engine
after
logging
onto
Facebook.
When
a
secondary
school
student’s
profile
was
confirmed,
that
student’s
friend
list
will
be
used
as
a
new
sampling
frame
from
which
to
obtain
another
secondary
school
student’s
profile.
This
sampling
strategy
improves
validity,
as
it
is
more
likely
to
obtain
an
actual
secondary
school
student’s
profile
from
the
friend
list
of
a
secondary
school
student
than
the
generic
Facebook
search
result
list.
72
However,
there
were
certain
criteria
for
my
snowball
sampling.
Firstly,
the
next
secondary
school
student
had
to
be
from
a
different
school
as
the
secondary
school
student
before
him/her.
Therefore,
to
ensure
representativeness
in
the
content
analysis,
the
profile
of
the
fifth
person
from
the
first
secondary
school
student’s
Facebook
friend
list
who
was
not
from
the
same
school
was
shortlisted
–
this
was
repeated
for
seven
profiles
before
getting
another
profile
from
Facebook’s
search
list
results.
This
was
to
limit
any
potential
bias
and
prevent
the
rest
of
the
profiles
from
being
linked
to
one
profile.
The
data
collection
had
to
be
conducted
over
seven
days,
as
my
Internet
cache
had
to
be
refreshed
daily
to
prevent
getting
the
same
results
on
Facebook.
The
sampling
protocol
for
my
content
analysis
allowed
for
an
examination
of
a
mix
of
youths
from
various
secondary
schools,
instead
of
getting
most
of
the
youths
from
the
same
school,
which
allowed
for
the
generalizability
of
the
results.
The
limitations
of
the
data
collection
via
content
analysis
were
mainly
technical
limitations
when
accessing
the
profiles
of
minors.
Also,
ascertaining
whether
the
Facebook
profile
belonged
to
a
current
secondary
student
was
not
straightforward
due
to
the
limited
information
in
private
profiles.
However,
these
limitations
were
mitigated
through
a
systematic
way
of
accessing
and
ascertaining
the
relevance
of
the
profiles
for
the
purpose
of
the
research.
A
possible
bias
that
might
arise
from
the
sampling
was
how
Singaporean
secondary
school
students
who
were
not
part
of
any
secondary
school
network
73
on
Facebook
would
not
be
part
of
the
sample
frame.
It
was
a
trade-‐off
to
ensure
the
validity
of
the
data
collection
and
results.
Not
all
the
profiles
accessed
were
public,
though
all
the
profiles
were
Facebook
profiles
that
could
be
viewed
by
non-‐friends
like
myself.
Therefore
private
profiles
were
included
in
the
data
collection
as
well.
5.2.2
Surveys
-
Method
Another
quantitative
aspect
of
the
research
was
in
the
form
of
online
surveys.
An
online
survey
afforded
the
respondents
flexibility
in
terms
where
and
when
they
to
fill
up
the
survey.
Most
importantly,
the
online
survey
was
suitable
for
answering
RQ3,
RQ4
and
RQ5,
which
deal
with
attitudinal
and
behavioral
questions.
The
survey
also
complemented
the
results
of
the
content
analysis
for
RQ1
and
RQ2.
The
online
survey
method
was
also
selected
as
surveys
and
research
administered
online
have
been
associated
with
reductions
in
socially
desirable
responding
(Joinson,
1999;
Frick
et
al.,
2001),
higher
levels
of
self-‐disclosure
(Weisband
&
Keisler,
1996)
and
an
increased
willingness
to
answer
sensitive
questions
(Tourangeau,
2004).
The
most
important
part
of
a
survey
research
is
the
development
of
the
questions.
The
success
of
the
survey
hinges
upon
the
questions
that
are
asked,
the
ways
in
which
they
are
phrased
and
the
order
in
which
they
are
placed.
On
74
top
of
that,
to
incorporate
the
values
of
action
research,
the
survey
questions
were
also
made
more
accessible
to
the
layperson,
especially
questions
for
the
parents,
who
might
not
always
be
proficient
in
the
online
environment.
In
fact,
a
study
indicated
that
people
find
a
computer
format
survey
both
more
enjoyable
and
faster
than
a
paper
survey
(Edwards,
et
al.,
1997).
This
may
be
due
to
the
higher
level
of
interactivity
in
a
computer-‐mediated
environment.
However
limitations
of
the
online
surveys
include
how
respondents
do
not
complete
the
surveys
in
time
due
to
multi-‐tasking
while
completing
the
surveys.
5.2.2.1
Surveys
-
procedure
Two
sets
of
online
surveys
were
created:
one
for
the
Singaporean
youths
and
another
for
Singaporean
parents
with
children
in
secondary
schools.
A
pre
requisite
for
the
survey
for
the
secondary
school
students
was
that
they
needed
to
have
a
Facebook
account,
as
the
purpose
of
the
survey
is
to
determine
their
online
privacy
perceptions
and
types
of
personal
information
disclosed
in
Facebook.
The
Facebook
account
pre-‐requisite
was
not
extended
to
the
parents
as
only
their
online
privacy
perceptions
were
to
be
gleaned.
Many
types
of
questions
were
utilized
in
both
surveys.
They
ranged
from
open
ended
questions
to
gain
more
insight
into
the
respondents,
as
well
as
fixed
alternative
or
closed
questions,
multiple
choice
questions
to
gather
demographic
information
or
to
find
out
the
respondents’
perspectives
on
a
range
of
issues
(Ray,
2006).
The
ordinal
scale
questions
were
used
to
ask
respondents
to
rank
a
75
range
items
such
as
a
list
of
personal
information
items
in
increasing
level
of
privacy.
Another
type
of
question
utilized
in
both
surveys
was
the
interval
scale
question.
Most
of
the
interval
scale
questions
were
based
on
the
Likert
scale
to
express
level
of
agreement
based
on
a
series
of
statements
related
to
online
privacy.
Finally,
the
last
type
of
question
that
was
used
in
both
surveys
was
the
ratio
scale
question,
which
asked
respondents
to
provide
measurable
responses;
for
example,
the
number
of
hours
the
individual
spent
online
in
a
week.
The
types
of
information
sought
from
the
respondents
also
affected
the
types
of
questions
that
were
formulated.
The
types
of
information
sought
included
the
following:
Attributes
(personal
or
socio-‐economic
characteristics
such
as
gender,
age,
occupation,
which
schools
respondents
are
from),
Behavior
(what
the
individual
has
done,
is
doing
and
may
do
in
the
future),
Attitude
(evaluation
and
how
respondents
feel
about
an
issue).
An
affordance
of
online
surveys
that
came
in
useful
when
implementing
both
surveys
for
parents
and
secondary
school
students
was
the
ability
to
route
questions
seamlessly.
Once
I
understood
the
workings
of
setting
up
the
survey
online,
it
was
possible
to
route
questions
from
one
to
the
next
in
non-‐sequential
order,
based
on
the
respondent’s
response.
This
affordance
affected
the
order
of
the
questions,
as
I
was
able
to
begin
an
open-‐ended
line
of
questioning.
This
process
is
called
funneling
(David
&
Sutton,
2004;
Ray,
2006).
Routing
or
funneling
questions
allowed
me
to
direct
the
respondents
to
particular
sections
76
of
the
questions.
This
process
is
helpful
when
there
are
some
groups
of
questions
that
are
not
applicable
to
some
respondents,
for
example,
parents
who
are
not
on
Facebook.
An
issue
that
was
addressed
in
the
formulation
of
the
survey
was
the
issue
of
context
effects
that
refer
to
the
effects
of
prior
questions
on
subsequent
questions
(Schman
&
Presser,
1981;
Schuman,
1992;
Sudman
et
al.,
1996,
Tourangeau
et
al.,
2000).
Context
effects
is
salient
for
this
study
as
the
subject
matter
involves
perceptions
of
privacy,
which
are
based
largely
on
one’s
experiences
and
values
that
have
been
affected
by
one’s
surroundings.
On
top
of
that,
social
networks
online
are
participatory
and
experiential
and
this
could
add
another
layer
of
context
effects.
The
order
of
the
questions
could
be
re-‐arranged
when
I
was
constructing
the
online
survey,
thus
mitigating
context
effects.
Researchers
have
long
recognized
the
influence
of
social
desirability
on
responses
to
sensitive
or
embarrassing
questions
is
higher
in
interviewer-‐
administered
surveys
than
self-‐administered
surveys
(Tourangeau
&
Smith,
1996).
Based
on
this,
we
can
expect
Internet
surveys
to
produce
fewer
socially
desirable
responses.
However,
this
assumes
that
the
respondents
trust
in
the
confidentiality
provided
by
Internet
surveys,
which
may
not
always
be
the
case.
What
I
did
to
mitigate
the
effects
of
context
effects
was
to
provide
the
respondents
more
control
over
the
survey
process
through
allowing
them
to
move
to
previous
questions
to
not
restrict
their
navigation.
77
To
provide
respondents
with
more
confidence,
the
language
used
in
the
survey
was
also
not
laden
with
technical
jargon
and
kept
simple
and
direct,
avoiding
ambiguity.
For
words
like
privacy,
a
simple
definition
was
used
to
explain
the
term.
Leading
questions
as
well
as
double-‐barreled
questions
were
avoided
to
avoid
causing
confusion.
Such
an
approach
also
upholds
the
fundamentals
of
action
research,
to
be
more
inclusive
and
accessible
to
the
layperson
by
making
the
survey
questions
less
laden
with
technical
jargon.
Finally,
the
design
of
the
survey
also
took
into
consideration
the
order
of
the
questions.
Context
effects
are
also
present
in
the
question
order.
Question
order
effects
become
increasingly
likely
to
occur
the
closer
the
questions
are
to
each
other,
in
terms
of
topic
and
the
location
in
the
survey
(Schuman
&
Presser,
1981;
Strack,
1992;
Tourangeau,
1992;
Touragangeau
et
al.,
2000).
Question
order
sometimes
brings
to
mind
considerations
that
are
then
more
accessible
for
use
in
interpreting
and
responding
to
a
subsequent
question
–
a
priming
function
(Schwarz
&
Clore,
1983;
Touragneau
at
al.,
1989;
Schwarz
&
Bless,
1992).
However,
the
respondent
must
perceive
the
two
questions
as
being
related
topically
before
any
consideration
will
be
paid
to
formulating
similar
responses.
Therefore
I
have
taken
note
to
not
list
questions
according
to
similar
themes
and
concepts,
but
rather,
by
the
type
of
information.
Respondents
will
answer
questions
about
attributes,
which
are
more
factual,
before
moving
on
to
the
78
behavioral,
and
attitudinal
questions
instead
of
answering
questions
by
themes.
Questions
pertaining
to
the
same
theme
will
therefore
be
spread
across
the
survey,
to
reduce
the
possibility
of
bias
in
the
results
collated.
Besides
context
effects
in
question
order,
the
fear
of
taking
extreme
positions
on
highly
polarized
issues
may
lead
to
contrast
effects
as
the
respondents
attempt
to
be
neutral
and
non-‐partisan
by
selecting
some
items
and
rejecting
others
(Tourangeau,
1992).
Using
page-‐by-‐page
construction
will
reduce
the
likelihood
of
context
effects
by
making
the
relationships
between
questions
less
obvious
as
there
is
the
tendency
for
respondents
to
prefer
middle
categories
(Tourangeau
et
al;.
2004).
Therefore,
the
Internet
surveys
were
constructed
in
a
page-‐by-‐page
view,
with
one
question
per
page,
with
the
element
of
routing
incorporated
in
the
surveys
as
well
to
spread
out
the
risk
of
middle
categories
bias.
Another
important
underlying
aspect
of
the
formulation
of
the
survey
is
its
theoretical
grounding,
where
I
have
to
be
as
non-‐technical
as
possible
while
incorporating
an
understanding
of
the
theoretical
underpinnings
of
SNS
and
online
privacy
in
the
questions
asked.
This
shall
be
addressed
in
the
next
section.
5.2.2.2
Dimensions
Dimensions
are
derived
from
theoretical
underpinnings
while
formulating
of
the
online
surveys.
Although
mutual
collaboration
action
research
is
inclined
towards
understanding
events
via
mutual
understanding
of
the
transactions
79
between
one’s
mental
work
and
external
context;
a
sound
theoretical
framework
is
essential
to
ensure
the
systematic
creation
of
survey
categories
and
questions.
Altman
and
Taylor
(1973)
suggested
that
disclosure
could
be
categorized
into
either
peripheral,
intermediate
or
core
layers.
The
peripheral
layer
is
concerned
with
biographic
data
(e.g
age),
the
intermediate
layer
with
attitudes,
values
and
opinions
and
the
core
layer
with
personal
values
such
as
needs,
fears
and
values.
Self-‐report
measures
of
disclosure
have
been
achieved
previously
with
a
reasonable
amount
of
success.
Parks
and
Floyd
(1996)
asked
their
participants
to
report
the
level
of
their
Internet
relationships
using
self-‐report.
However,
a
lack
of
context
seems
to
be
the
main
challenge
when
using
self-‐report
measures,
I
tried
to
circumvent
this
by
posing
scenarios
to
youths.
This
is
demonstrated
in
the
survey
when
youths
were
posed
a
scenario
question
that
tested
their
understanding
of
how
the
photo-‐tagging
function
in
Facebook
works.
Disclosure
is
something
that
is
reflective
of
an
ongoing
conversation
and
the
wider
environment
–
which
includes
interpersonal
and
not
just
computer-‐
mediated
interactions
(Joinson
&
Paine,
2004).
Therefore
how
one
accesses
the
environment
is
important
as
well
–
for
SNS
like
Facebook,
users
join
to
link
up
with
other
users,
which
may
explain
the
why
the
social
element
supersedes
the
need
to
protect
one’s
personal
information
in
Facebook.
80
The
privacy
and
self-‐disclosure
concepts
work
on
the
premise
that
very
few
individuals
actually
take
any
action
to
protect
their
personal
information,
even
when
doing
so
involves
little
or
no
cost
(Berendt
et
al.,
2005;
Jenson
et
al.,
2005).
Therefore,
the
issues
of
privacy
and
self-‐disclosure
were
investigated
in
the
survey
questions
where
youths
were
asked
about
their
awareness
of
various
privacy
settings
in
Facebook
vis
a
vis
the
privacy
settings
they
utilized.
The
privacy
framework
for
this
study
was
based
on
Westin’s
(1967)
four
main
functions
of
privacy:
solitude,
intimacy,
anonymity
and
reserve
(limited
and
protected
communication),
which
in
turn
provide
the
link
between
secrecy
(dependent
on
level
of
disclosure)
and
privacy.
Privacy
is
particularly
important
for
understanding
self-‐disclosure,
as
the
relationship
between
the
two
concepts
is
paradoxical.
Privacy
is
a
prerequisite
for
disclosure,
yet
the
process
of
disclosure
undermines
privacy.
Out
of
the
four
functions
of
privacy,
the
surveys
conducted
focused
on
‘limited
and
protected
communication’,
which
refers
to
both
the
sharing
of
personal
information
with
trusted
others
and
the
setting
of
interpersonal
boundaries.
Altman
(1975)
also
supports
this
view
of
privacy
from
a
social
and
environmental
psychology
perspective.
Both
Altman’s
(1975)
and
Westin’s
(1967)
approach
to
the
idea
of
privacy
with
a
limited-‐access
concept
are
further
supported
by
Burgoon
et
al.
(1989)
who
derived
an
interactional
and
social-‐communication
dimension
which
examines
an
individual’s
ability
and
effort
to
control
social
contacts.
This
interactional
81
element
of
privacy
is
then
extended
to
the
informational
dimension
of
privacy
(Westin,
1967;
Burgoon
et
al.,
1989)
that
relates
an
individual’s
right
to
determine
how,
when
and
to
what
extent
information
about
the
self
will
be
released
to
another
person.
However,
the
difference
between
informational
privacy
and
self-‐disclosure
lies
in
the
control
–
the
self
determines
self-‐
disclosure
whilst
information
privacy
is
partly
governed
by
law
and
for
the
case
of
Facebook,
its
set
of
privacy
settings
and
privacy
policies.
Therefore,
aside
from
the
questions
on
self-‐disclosure
online
and
Facebook,
questions
pertaining
to
the
understanding
of
informational
and
interactional
privacy
asked
respondents
whether
they
read
Facebook’s
privacy
policy
and
their
settings
for
popular
Facebook
utilities
such
as
photo
albums.
Finally,
a
set
of
questions
was
utilized
in
both
sets
of
surveys
to
categorize
youths
and
parents
into
three
groups
according
to
the
Westin
privacy
segmentation.
The
questions
are
as
follows:
i)
For
the
purpose
of
this
study,
privacy
is
defined
as
“personal
information
which
is
confined
to
or
intended
only
for,
a
certain
person/group
of
people,
and
not
anyone
else”.
State
your
level
of
agreement
with
this
statement.
ii)
In
general,
you
are
concerned
about
your
privacy
when
using
the
Internet.
82
iii)
Facebook
is
safe
for
the
posting
of
personal
information
(mobile
number,
addresses).
iv)
It
is
important
to
maintain
personal
information
privacy
(e.g.
mobile
number,
contact
information)
in
Facebook.
v)
I
can
count
on
Facebook
to
protect
my
privacy.
Westin’s
three
privacy
categories
include:
Privacy
Fundamentalists
who
feel
strongly
about
privacy
and
highly
value
it;
Privacy
Pragmatists
who
have
strong
values
about
privacy
and
weigh
value
to
them
and
society
when
providing
their
personal
information;
and
Privacy
Unconcerned
who
have
no
real
concerns
about
privacy.
Understanding
the
youths’
and
parents’
privacy
values
will
enable
policymakers
to
better
address
the
issue
of
online
privacy
and
self-‐disclosure
to
the
different
groups
of
the
privacy
segmentation
and
whether
there
is
a
need
to
further
emphasize
and
reinforce
the
importance
of
privacy
online.
5.2.2.3
Sampling
Method
The
sampling
for
the
surveys
was
conducted
using
a
multi-‐pronged
approach.
Before
the
actual
surveys
were
released,
a
pilot-‐test
was
conducted
on
two
secondary
school
students
and
their
parents
in
December
2009
using
convenience
sampling
from
my
contacts.
Amendments
and
improvisations
were
made
before
creating
the
online
surveys
and
going
live
with
the
online
surveys
in
March
2010.
83
The
target
populations
for
the
surveys
are
Singaporean
secondary
school
students
aged
12-‐17
as
well
as
parents
with
children
in
secondary
schools.
The
surveys
measured
self-‐disclosure
for
the
youths
as
well
as
privacy
perceptions
for
both
youths
and
parents.
The
sampling
strategy
initially
employed
for
the
surveys
was
non-‐probability
sampling
as
it
was
optimal
for
testing
population
characteristics
and
to
describe
accurately
the
characteristics
of
the
sample
in
order
to
estimate
population
parameters.
Procedure
I
had
initially
approached
schools
to
seek
their
cooperation
but
the
schools
were
unwilling
to
commit
to
the
study
due
to
the
conflict
with
the
schools’
academic
calendar.
Therefore,
alternative
sampling
strategies
were
employed
involving
the
use
of
social
networks.
I
joined
the
Facebook
groups
of
the
various
secondary
schools
and
posted
the
survey
links
on
the
walls
or
discussion
boards
of
the
student
group
pages
as
shown
below
in
Fig
5.4.
It
should
be
noted
that
such
a
sampling
procedure
would
be
biased
as
only
schools
which
have
a
Facebook
presence
would
be
included
in
the
study
even
though
students
from
other
schools
which
are
not
on
Facebook
have
their
own
individual
Facebook
accounts.
84
Fig
5.4:
Example
of
posts
in
discussion
boards
to
get
students
for
online
survey
After
taking
into
consideration
how
some
of
the
Facebook
groups
are
not
very
active,
alternative
ways
of
reaching
the
youths
were
used.
The
most
effective
method
was
that
of
network
sampling.
I
used
my
contacts
in
secondary
schools
to
reach
out
to
their
peers
as
well
as
contacts
of
my
friends
who
are
secondary
school
teachers
to
pass
on
the
survey
links.
Email
reminders
were
sent
weekly
to
remind
them
to
pass
on
the
survey
links.
This
proved
to
be
more
effective
than
going
through
the
bureaucracy
of
the
educational
institutes.
The
advantage
of
snowballing
is
that
it
reveals
a
network
of
contacts
that
can
be
studied
and
from
the
responses
so
far,
it
is
observed
that
there
tend
to
be
clusters
of
students
from
schools
who
participated
in
the
survey.
The
main
limitation
of
the
snowballing
sampling
strategy
is
how
it
favors
and
includes
those
with
a
connected
network
of
individuals,
which
makes
the
results
of
the
students’
survey
lacking
in
terms
of
generalizability.
85
It
was
more
difficult
to
reach
out
to
the
parents.
Most
schools
expressed
that
they
were
unwilling
to
take
on
the
surveys
due
to
the
involvement
of
parents
in
the
data
collection
process.
There
was
also
a
lack
of
support
from
the
parent
support
groups,
which
made
it
difficult
to
access
this
target
population.
It
was
also
realized
during
the
data
collection
process
that
parents
do
not
tend
to
forward
the
survey
links
to
other
parents,
which
made
snowballing
efforts
futile.
The
aim
of
the
study
was
to
obtain
responses
from
200
students
and
200
parents.
By
mid-‐April
2010,
408
responses
from
students
were
collected
while
150
responses
were
collected
from
the
parents.
Out
of
the
408
responses
from
youths,
258
of
the
online
surveys
were
completed;
out
of
the
150
surveys
collected
from
the
parents,
101
were
completed.
The
response
rates
were
more
than
50%,
which
could
be
due
to
the
snowballing
effect,
where
participants
were
more
willing
to
complete
a
survey
from
a
known
source.
In
terms
of
representativeness,
there
were
more
female
(73.6%)
than
male
(26.4%)
youths
participating
in
the
survey
from
a
representative
mix
of
schools:
independent/autonomous
(17.3%)
and
government
(82.7%).
For
parent
respondents,
there
were
more
female
respondents
(68%)
than
male
respondents
(32%)
with
the
majority
(91.2%)
of
parent
respondents
in
white-‐
collared
industries.
86
5.3
Challenges
encountered
in
the
course
of
data
collection
5.3.1
Challenges
faced
at
the
conceptualization
phase
Challenges
faced
in
the
conceptualization
of
the
surveys
pertain
mainly
to
linking
the
concepts
and
creating
dimensions
for
online
self-‐disclosure
and
privacy.
The
challenge
lie
in
how
connectivity
has
become
more
nebulous
as
people
may
be
unintentionally
revealing
personal
information
via
the
technology
they
use.
For
example,
mobile
phones
with
inbuilt
location
functions
Therefore
it
was
important
to
set
the
parameters
of
self-‐disclosure
as
a
concept
where
information
disclosure
can
be
controlled.
Also,
in
the
case
of
the
Internet,
the
self-‐disclosure
and
privacy
paradox
may
be
resolved
without
incurring
a
loss
in
privacy
(Ben
Zee
v,
2003)
as
level
of
disclosure
for
information
online
can
be
controlled
by
the
users,
for
example,
Facebook.
5.3.2
Challenges
faced
at
the
implementation
phase
Challenges
faced
in
the
implementation
of
the
both
the
content
analysis
and
the
surveys
were
technical
limitations
as
well
as
access
to
the
target
populations.
For
the
content
analysis,
the
technical
limitations
such
as
Facebook’s
search
engine
filters
and
privacy
protection
settings
for
minors
presented
a
challenge
when
accessing
the
secondary
students’
profiles.
I
overcame
the
challenge
of
access
by
utilizing
technical
methods
such
clearing
my
cache
and
employing
a
systematic
way
of
sampling.
87
The
challenges
posed
by
the
dissemination
of
the
online
surveys
to
the
target
population
proved
to
be
more
challenging
to
overcome
as
compared
to
the
challenges
faced
during
content
analysis.
Perhaps
it
would
have
been
advisable
to
use
paper
survey
methods
for
parents,
though
there
would
be
a
trade-‐off
in
terms
of
the
results
vis
a
vis
a
higher
response
rate.
A
mix
of
online
and
paper
surveys
may
result
in
bias
arising
from
context
effects.
Therefore,
as
the
response
rate
for
the
parents
did
not
meet
the
target
200
respondents,
the
results
from
the
parents
will
be
factored
in
as
an
exploratory
study
due
to
the
lack
of
generalizability.
The
low
response
rate
for
the
parents
will
be
factored
in
the
subsequent
chapters
during
the
discussions
on
findings.
Chapter
6:
Findings
and
discussion
–
Content
analysis
6.1
Overview
of
chapter
The
rationale
for
the
research
design
and
response
rates
of
the
online
surveys
for
both
parents
and
youths
were
reported
in
the
previous
chapter.
Following
up
on
that,
this
chapter
shall
address
the
results
of
the
content
analysis.
In
this
chapter,
the
findings
from
content
analysis
will
be
presented
to
address
RQ1
and
RQ2
(refer
to
pages
54
and
55).
The
information
collected
shall
also
address
the
issues
of:
i)
level
of
information
privacy
of
the
Facebook
profiles
of
secondary
school
students,
as
well
as
ii)
students’
utilization
of
Facebook’s
information
privacy
settings.
This
chapter
shall
proceed
to
conclude
with
88
observations
gleaned
and
how
they
contribute
to
the
existing
body
of
literature
of
SNS
and
related
topics.
6.2
Representativeness
of
student
profiles
and
data
storage
One
of
the
aims
of
conducting
content
analysis
of
Singaporean
secondary
school
students’
Facebook
profiles
was
to
aid
in
providing
the
framework
for
the
online
survey
questions.
It
also
demonstrated
the
information
privacy
safeguards
utilized
by
Singaporean
youths
on
Facebook.
The
selection
of
the
students’
profiles
was
crafted
to
be
as
varied
as
possible.
This
was
in
line
with
the
aim
of
achieving
a
purposive
sample
population
to
achieve
as
much
as
possible,
representativeness
amongst
the
student
profiles.
Among
the
500
profiles,
there
was
a
mix
of
single-‐sex
(33.1%)
and
co-‐ed
(66.9%)
schools;
schools
from
the
north
(33.1%),
south
(24.3%),
east
(26.2%)
and
west
(16.4%)
zones;
independent/
autonomous
(15.1%)
and
government
(84.9%)
secondary
schools;
and
a
mix
of
female
(52.2%)
and
male
(47.8%)
students.
As
mentioned
in
the
previous
chapter,
I
had
prepared
a
coding
sheet
for
the
public
profiles
of
students.
After
the
pre-‐test,
the
coding
sheet
was
modified
to
include
user
information
revealed
in
private
profiles.
All
500
Singaporean
students’
Facebook
profiles
were
print-‐screened
and
kept
in
a
folder
in
my
laptop
for
storage
and
reference
purposes.
Keeping
in
line
with
89
ethical
considerations,
the
Facebook
profiles
shall
be
deleted
six
months
post-‐
completion
of
the
study.
6.3
Addressing
the
research
questions
RQ1:
Do
Singaporean
youths
adopt
privacy
safeguards
in
Facebook?
Number
of
students
Percentage
(out
of
500)
Private
profile
495
99%
Public
profile
5
1%
Real
name
5
1%
Address
0
0%
Photo
album(s)
5
1%
Friend
list
5
1%
Gender
5
1%
Likes
and
interests
5
1%
Location:
Country
5
1%
Birthday
5
1%
Wall
posts/comments
5
1%
Instant
messenger
username
5
1%
Twitter
username
4
0.8%
Blog
link
3
0.6%
Home
number
0
0%
Mobile
number
0
0%
Contact
information
for
Facebook
5
1%
Real
name
425
85%
Address
0
0%
Photo
album(s)
0
0%
Type
of
profile
User
information
posted
in
public
profiles
User
information
posted
for
private
profiles
90
Friend
list
100
20%
Gender
380
76%
Likes
and
interests
70
14%
Location:
Country
20
4%
Birthday
20
4%
Wall
posts/comments
15
3%
Instant
messenger
username
5
1%
Twitter
username
5
1%
Blog
link
15
3%
Home
number
0
0%
Mobile
number
0
0%
Contact
information
for
Facebook
140
28%
Table
6.1:
Types
of
profiles
and
personal
information
revealed
From
Table
6.1,
most
of
the
students’
profiles
(99%)
are
private.
Private
profiles
are
accessed
via
the
public
profiles
of
users
who
are
friends
with
users
of
private
profiles.
The
information
displayed
on
private
profiles
is
usually
more
limited
than
information
in
public
profiles
to
non-‐friends
like
myself.
From
the
results,
there
are
varying
levels
of
privacy
within
the
private
profiles.
Some
youths
(15%)
use
monikers,
leaving
out
personal
photos
for
their
profiles’
display
photos;
other
youths
have
varied
levels
of
access
to
wall
posts
and
comments.
From
the
500
Facebook
profiles,
it
can
be
surmised
that
most
(99%)
youths
are
aware
of
information
privacy
and
undertake
steps
to
safeguard
their
personal
information
in
Facebook.
One
of
the
most
common
privacy
safeguard
practiced
is
evinced
from
their
profile
settings:
private
(99%)
instead
of
public
(1%)
to
protect
their
personal
information.
91
Having
a
private
profile
implies
that
while
the
user’s
youth’s
profile
can
be
found
in
Facebook,
it
may
not
reflect
all
of
his/her
personal
information
in
Facebook.
One
has
to
request
to
add
the
user
as
a
friend
in
order
to
access
the
rest
of
his/her
personal
information
posted
on
Facebook,
or
be
subject
to
having
access
to
the
same
amount
of
personal
information
disclosed
as
the
other
non-‐friend
Facebook
users.
Out
of
500
profiles,
only
five
youths
set
their
profiles
as
public
(see
Fig
6.1)
vis
a
vis
the
other
495
youths.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
although
most
of
the
youths’
profiles
were
private,
there
is
a
range
of
information
privacy
settings
employed
amongst
the
private
profiles.
From
Table
6.1,
we
can
see
that
none
of
the
youths
with
public
profiles
revealed
their
residential
address,
residential
numbers
and
mobile
numbers.
The
number
of
privacy
safeguards
taken
by
youths
with
private
profiles
is
higher
than
those
with
public
profiles.
On
top
of
residential
addresses
and
numbers,
mobile
numbers,
photo
albums
were
also
not
available
for
public
viewing
in
Facebook.
The
extent
and
nature
of
personal
information
disclosure
are
discussed
in
RQ2,
but
from
Table
6.1,
Singaporean
youths
do
adopt
privacy
safeguards
in
Facebook.
92
Fig
6.1:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
public
profile
RQ2:
What
is
the
extent
and
nature
of
information
disclosure
by
Singaporean
youths
on
Facebook?
Basic
identifiers
in
youths’
Facebook
profiles
To
aid
me
in
identifying
a
youth’s
profile
as
belonging
to
a
Singaporean
secondary
school
student,
I
included
the
use
of
identifiers
in
the
youths’
profiles
for
my
content
analysis.
Such
information
was
also
helpful
in
picking
out
the
types
of
personal
information
revealed
by
students.
Basic
identifiers
for
the
youths’
profiles
were
i)
youths’
profile
photos,
ii)
friends
in
the
youths’
profiles
as
well
as
iii)
profile
information
such
as
the
school
networks.
Identifiers
in
youths’
profiles
Number
of
youths
Percentage
(out
of
500)
Youths’
profile
photos
437
87.4%
Pictures
of
friends
63
12.6%
Friends
list
500
100%
School
networks
500
100%
Table
6.2:
Identifiers
in
youths’
Facebook
profiles
As
I
had
to
ascertain
that
the
profile
was
that
of
a
secondary
school
student’s,
a
photo
of
a
youth
in
the
profile
photo
was
insufficient.
Examples
of
identifiers
in
the
profile
photos
include
the
youth
wearing
the
school
uniform
or
at
school
93
events
wearing
the
school
colours.
The
youth
may
identify
himself/herself
with
a
school
network
and
I
checked
the
youth’s
Friends
list
to
confirm
if
the
student
is
currently
a
member
of
the
school
via
his/her
friends’
profiles.
The
rationale
for
the
use
of
multiple
identifiers
is
to
address
situations
when
there
is
a
discrepancy
in
the
personal
information.
A
case
in
question
was
when
a
youth
claimed
to
be
a
member
of
a
particular
secondary
school’s
graduating
class
in
2008
but
had
recent
photos
clearly
depicting
that
he
was
still
a
member
of
the
secondary
school.
Such
incidences
may
arise
in
Singapore,
where
the
concept
of
a
graduating
class
is
still
less
prevalent
than
in
the
USA,
where
Facebook
is
created.
Therefore
the
idea
of
class
of
2008
may
be
construed
to
be
a
member
of
that
school
in
2008
and
not
necessarily
the
graduating
class
of
2008
(refer
to
Fig.
6.2).
Fig.
6.2:
A
Facebook
profile
with
conflicting
personal
information
94
Therefore
from
the
basic
identifiers,
it
can
be
surmised
that
personal
information
revealed
in
Facebook
by
youths
may
not
concur
with
or
reflect
the
truth.
This
will
affect
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
personal
information
revealed
in
Facebook;
it
is
not
only
the
types
of
personal
information
revealed
in
the
youths’
profiles,
the
veracity
of
the
personal
information
has
to
be
checked
too.
To
determine
the
veracity
of
the
personal
information
revealed
in
Facebook,
it
is
advisable
to
double
check
with
other
available
Facebook
personal
information.
Based
on
Table
6.1
(page
88
and
89),
Singaporean
youths
display
a
high
level
of
information
disclosure
in
their
public
profiles.
From
Fig
6.1
and
Table
6.1,
we
can
see
that
youths
with
public
profiles
disclose
personal
information
such
as
their
location
(100%),
blog
address
(60%),
Instant
Messaging
(IM)
(100%)
and
Twitter
usernames
(80%),
gender
(100%),
birthday
(100%),
networks
and
educational
institutions
(100%)
and
more
personal
information
like
photo
albums
(100%).
It
is
also
observed
that
there
is
a
discernible
decrease
in
the
level
of
personal
information
disclosure
in
their
private
profiles
vis
a
vis
their
public
profiles;
the
personal
information
disclosed
is
more
generic,
limited
usually
to
just
gender
(100%)
and
Facebook
contact
information
(100%)
(Fig.
6.2).
However,
while
100%
of
the
youths
reveal
networks
and
educational
institutions,
it
may
be
attributed
to
the
way
the
profiles
were
selected
–
via
schools’
Facebook
networks
and
snowballing
from
youths
who
display
their
school
networks
in
95
Facebook.
School
networks
is
a
less
private
type
of
personal
information
vis
a
vis
home
addresses
and
mobile
numbers;
therefore
it
does
not
affect
the
overall
level
of
personal
information
disclosure
by
youths
in
Facebook.
In
answering
RQ1,
it
was
noted
that
there
exists
different
types
and
levels
of
private
profiles
due
to
the
affordances
provided
by
Facebook
that
allow
youths
to
customize
their
privacy
settings.
Most
(76%)
youths
with
private
profiles
revealed
very
rudimentary
information,
usually
limited
to
real
name,
gender
and
networks
(Fig
6.3).
Fig.
6.3:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
private
profile
with
minimal
personal
information
However,
some
youths
with
private
profiles
also
list
family
members
who
are
on
Facebook,
indicate
their
likes
and
interests
(14%)
and
allow
access
to
their
Friends
lists
(20%)
and
wall
posts
(3%)
(Fig.
6.4).
96
Fig.
6.4:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
private
profile
revealing
more
personal
information
From
Fig.
6.3
and
6.4,
it
can
be
observed
that
some
youths
like
J
Zhao,
reveal
publicly
more
personal
information
in
their
private
profiles
as
compared
to
other
youths
who
own
private
profiles.
Although
real
name
is
one
of
the
most
(86%)
prevalent
piece
of
personal
information
revealed
in
Facebook,
this
does
not
include
youths
such
as
STT
(Fig.
6.5)
who
use
their
real
names
in
their
Facebook
profile
contact
information
but
not
as
their
profile
names.
Other
personal
information
revealed
by
youths
in
their
public
and
private
profiles
include
Gender
(77%),
Contact
information
for
Facebook
(29%),
Likes
and
interests
(15%),
Location
(5%),
Birthday
(5%),
Wall
posts
(4%),
Blog
links
(3.6%),
IM
usernames
(2%),
Twitter
usernames
(1.8%).
None
of
the
private
profiles
listed
the
home
addresses,
home
numbers
or
mobile
numbers.
From
the
above,
it
is
evident
that
youths
are
aware
of
the
information
97
privacy
safeguards
on
Facebook
and
utilize
them.
They
are
also
judicious
about
the
types
of
personal
information
they
allow
to
be
publicly
viewed.
Fig.
6.5:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
private
profile
under
a
moniker
Most
information
such
as
Gender
(77%),
Contact
information
for
Facebook
(29%),
Likes
and
interests
(15%)
that
youths
allow
strangers
access
to
are
less
personal
and
private
and
more
generic,
vis
a
vis
more
private
personal
information
like
Location
(5%),
Birthday
(5%),
Wall
posts
(4%),
Blog
links
(3.6%),
IM
usernames
(2%).
There
seems
to
be
a
privacy
continuum
with
respect
to
the
types
of
personal
information
revealed.
More
sensitive
and
private
personal
information
such
as
location
and
birthdays
are
less
likely
to
be
revealed
by
youths
in
their
Facebook
profiles.
Information
that
enables
strangers
to
establish
direct
online
communication
with
youths
such
as
IM
(2%)
and
Twitter
(1.8%)
are
also
less
likely
to
be
revealed
publicly
on
Facebook.
Contact
information
such
as
98
residential
numbers
and
addresses
that
allow
strangers
to
establish
offline
contact
are
almost
never
revealed
publicly
in
Facebook.
From
the
results
above,
it
can
be
surmised
that
even
though
most
Singaporean
youths
possess
private
Facebook
profiles,
the
concept
of
private
in
Facebook
should
not
be
taken
at
face
value
as
the
deprivation
of
most,
if
not
all,
personal
information
to
all
Facebook
users.
Even
among
youths
who
possess
private
profiles,
some
profiles
are
more
private
than
others.
Therefore,
one
has
to
understand
the
extent
and
nature
of
personal
information
to
make
sense
of
the
information
in
Facebook
profiles.
Generic
personal
information
such
as
gender
and
school
networks
being
revealed
at
a
higher
frequency
in
private
profiles
vis
a
vis
personal
information
which
can
identify
youths
as
individuals
-‐
locations,
birthdays,
photos.
The
omission
of
such
information
protects
youths
from
online
harassment
and
suggests
that
Singaporean
youths
are
utilizing
Facebook
to
seek
out
and
make
new
friends.
6.3
Observations
from
the
content
analysis
of
Singaporean
youths’
Facebook
profiles
6.3.1
Number
of
friends
on
Facebook
100%
of
youths
with
public
profiles
allow
display
their
Friends;
however,
this
is
not
the
case
for
most
private
profiles.
Most
(80%)
of
the
private
profiles
do
not
display
their
Friends
list.
For
youths
who
display
their
Friends
list
in
their
profiles,
their
number
of
friends
ranges
from
89
to
1395.
It
is
noted
that
youths
99
with
over
1000
friends
in
their
Friends
list
(4.8%)
own
private
profiles
that
furnish
more
than
the
basic
generic
information.
There
was
only
one
exception
where
a
youth’s
profile
(Fig.
6.5)
did
not
provide
a
real
name,
nor
personal
contact
information
aside
from
her
Facebook
contact
information
and
had
a
Friends
list
of
1395.
It
was
STT’s
profile
(Fig.
6.5).
For
STT’s
profile,
although
her
real
name
can
be
deduced
from
her
Facebook
contact
information,
other
Facebook
users
are
unable
to
access
her
wall,
photo
albums
or
email
address/blog
address
unless
they
add
her
as
a
friend
and
she
approves
their
friend
request.
Such
aforementioned
tactics
employed
by
youths
can
demonstrate
how
they
are
savvy
when
it
comes
to
protecting
their
personal
information
on
Facebook.
They
use
monikers
as
their
profile
names
while
leaving
clues
about
their
real
identities
in
their
profile.
Their
friends
on
Facebook
are
able
to
identify
them
from
the
information
they
choose
to
reveal
in
their
profiles:
profile
photos,
location,
etc..
For
example
in
the
case
of
STT,
she
used
her
real
name
for
her
Facebook
profile
contact
information.
6.3.2
Youths’
different
approaches
to
Facebook
information
privacy
Overall,
results
of
the
content
analysis
do
not
indicate
or
attribute
information
privacy
traits
to
specific
student
groups.
For
the
top
three
types
of
personal
information
Table
6.1,
real
name,
gender
and
100
contact
information,
youths
who
reveal
both
gender
and
contact
information
are
also
evenly
distributed
across
the
schools
as
well
as
female
and
male
youths.
However,
for
real
names
revealed
on
Facebook,
it
is
noted
that
students
from
government
schools
(84.9%)
tend
to
not
use
their
real
names
on
Facebook
compared
to
students
from
the
other
schools.
Youths
create
monikers
mixed
with
their
real
names,
for
example,
Sinyee
“Onew”
Lim
(Fig.
6.6)
and
Sharon
de
Tiara
(Fig
6.7)
or
monikers
that
include
local
colloquialisms,
such
as
Gabie
Suaku
(Fig.
6.8).
This
may
be
a
result
of
school
culture,
as
the
abovementioned
students
have
schoolmates
who
follow
similar
monikers
in
their
Friends
list.
For
example,
Sharon
De
Tiara
has
“siblings”
who
are
named
Dinasha
DancingStar
(Fig.
6.7).
Fig.
6.6:
An
example
of
a
youth’s
Facebook
profile
under
a
moniker-real
name
101
Fig.
6.7:
Another
example
of
a
youth
and
her
friends
who
adopt
moniker-real
names
Fig
6.8:
An
example
of
a
Facebook
profile
under
a
colloquial
moniker,
“Gabie
Suaku”
While
there
are
no
major
differences
in
the
types
of
personal
information
revealed
in
Facebook
among
youths;
certain
nuances
exist
in
the
way
youths
portray
themselves
on
Facebook,
which
may
vary
among
Singaporean
secondary
schools.
Such
nuances
may
be
attributed
to
different
school
cultures
rather
than
the
overall
Singaporean
youth
culture.
102
6.4
Contribution
to
existing
literature
6.4.1
SNS
and
youths
From
my
content
analysis,
it
is
observed
that
youths
use
their
Facebook
profiles
to
express
an
aspect
of
their
identity,
may
it
be
their
school
affiliations,
their
friends
or
their
favorite
animae
characters.
Also,
my
analysis
concludes
that
youths
have
control
online
as
they
select
their
personal
information
to
disclose
and
consciously
utilize
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards.
Through
their
Facebook
profiles,
youths
can
construct
their
profiles
for
their
friends
and
peers
to
view
and
are
inclined
to
present
the
side
of
themselves
they
believe
will
be
well
received
by
their
peers
(boyd,
2008;
Stern,
2008).
This
is
evinced
from
youths
selecting
profile
photos
that
emphasize
their
looks,
with
classmates
and
friends
to
emphasize
popularity
and
offline
social
networks
(Fig.
6.9)
and
award
ceremonies
to
emphasize
achievements
(Fig
6.10).
Fig.
6.9:
A
Singaporean
youth’s
Facebook
profile
photo
displaying
her
social
and
school
affiliations
103
Fig
6.10:
A
Singaporean
youth’s
Facebook
profile
photo
emphasizing
on
achievements
in
school
6.4.2
Level
of
information
disclosure
in
SNS
One
of
the
premises
of
this
study
is
to
investigate
the
level
of
personal
information
disclosure
and
my
findings
support
current
literature
on
how
the
problem
of
personal
information
disclosure
on
SNS
may
not
be
as
widespread
as
many
assume
and
that
the
majority
of
youths
are
using
it
responsibly,
as
postulated
by
Hinduja
and
Patchin
(2008).
My
findings
also
agree
with
Wolak,
Mitchell
and
Finkelhor
(2002),
about
close
online
relationships,
as
I
found
that
youths
list
family
members
and
close
friends
as
family
(Fig.
6.11).
Fig
6:11:
Singaporean
youth’s
profile
where
youth
has
parents
as
friends
on
Facebook
My
results
also
contribute
to
Donath
and
boyd’s
2004
finding
on
how
teenagers
fabricate
key
identifying
information
such
as
names,
age
and
location.
From
my
104
results,
most
(86%)
youths
use
their
real
names
in
Facebook
and
choose
to
not
reveal
their
age
or
location.
I
observe
that
youths
create
their
autonomous
space
and
forms
of
communication
that
are
inclined
towards
Buckingham’s
(2008)
suggestion
that
we
are
moving
towards
a
more
creative
and
innovative
generation.
This
is
further
substantiated
by
Singaporean
youths’
novel
use
of
monikers
or
real
names
within
monikers.
Some
youths
have
also
substituted
their
own
photos
with
pictures
of
popular
singers
or
anime
characters,
which
are
creative
ways
of
not
providing
their
personal
information
while
displaying
a
part
of
their
identity
in
terms
of
their
popular
culture
preferences.
6.4.3
Virtual
communities
and
network
effect
From
the
literature,
it
is
suggested
that
personal
connections
present
in
SNS
are
homogenous
in
nature.
This
is
because
when
people
socialize,
they
are
attracted
to
others
similar
to
themselves,
thus
reinforcing
the
possibility
of
homophily
being
present
in
SNS
connections
(Turchi,
2007).
From
the
youths’
profiles,
I
notice
for
photos
depicting
of
a
youth
and
a
friend
or
a
group
of
friends,
90%
of
such
profile
photos
depict
people
who
are
members
of
the
same
age
and
demographic
group
(Fig.
6.12
and
6.13).
My
results
also
resonates
with
Turchi’s
2007
study,
that
homophily
is
present
from
how
Friends
list
indicate
youths
from
the
same
sub-‐groups;
that
internal
homophily
is
reinforced
when
members
invite
their
friends
whom
they
think
will
fit
in
with
the
image
they
want
to
portray
in
Facebook.
Singaporean
youths
105
even
adopt
similar
monikers
to
create
a
sense
of
community
in
Facebook.
Such
internal
homophily,
is
also
prominent
in
the
profile
photos
(Fig.
6.12
and
6.13).
Fig
6.12:
A
profile
photo
of
a
group
that
belongs
to
the
same
demographic
group
Fig
6.13:
A
profile
photo
of
two
groups
of
Singaporean
youths
that
belong
to
the
same
demographic
group
6.4.4
Identity,
self-presentation
and
contextualizing
in
SNS
My
findings
also
value
add
to
the
literature
on
identity
and
self-‐presentation
in
SNS,
such
as
Donath
and
boyd’s
claims
that
the
public
displays
of
connections
reveal
the
unreliability
of
the
information
in
Facebook.
My
findings
indicate
that
the
limited
information
that
is
publicly
available
in
Singaporean
youths’
private
profiles
suggests
that
there
is
a
trend
of
omission
rather
than
publishing
of
unreliable
personal
information.
Youths
who
publish
false
information
such
as
monikers
in
Facebook
do
not
intend
to
lie
or
mislead,
but
use
such
personal
information
to
identify
with
their
friends.
Also,
since
Singaporean
youths
use
106
Facebook
to
reconnect
with
acquaintances
like
friends
and
family,
it
is
counter-‐
intuitive
to
publish
unreliable
or
false
information.
From
the
profile
photos
and
types
of
personal
information
in
Facebook,
we
can
observe
how
Singaporean
youths
converse
through
profiles.
boyd
and
Heer
(2006)
state
that
youths
in
Facebook
rely
on
interactions
with
other
members
in
order
to
create
the
context
of
a
digital
environment.
From
my
study,
the
information
available
publicly
set
the
context
for
interactions
where
discussions
about
school,
likes
and
interests
occur.
This
can
also
be
applied
to
the
private
profiles
as
well
from
my
findings.
A
private
profile
sets
the
context
for
interaction
to
be
just
between
friends,
family
and
approved
online
friends
in
Facebook.
The
employment
of
privacy
settings
is
related
to
impression
management
and
how
it
is
applied
in
SNS
(Evens,
Gosling
&
Carroll,
2008).
According
to
Tufeckci
(2008),
users
of
SNS
are
heavier
users
of
the
expressive
Internet
and
that
they
pay
more
attention
to
social
details
and
what
other
users
say.
Results
from
my
study
support
this:
Singaporean
youths
who
use
Facebook
are
more
attuned
to
social
information,
which
explains
the
customization
of
their
Facebook
profiles
to
display
positive
attributes,
as
well
as
enabling
their
privacy
settings
to
prevent
strangers
from
accessing
their
personal
information
and
criticizing
their
photos
or
wall
comments.
107
6.4.5
Privacy,
surveillance
and
legal
issues
Gross
and
Acquisti’s
(2005)
as
well
as
Rodrigues’
(2008)
concerns
about
the
amount
of
information
Facebook
users
provide
about
themselves,
the
relatively
open
nature
of
the
information
and
lack
of
privacy
control
activated
by
the
users
are
not
substantiated
by
my
content
analysis
findings.
The
prevailing
concern
of
SNS
users
exposing
themselves
to
offline
(e.g.
stalking)
and
online
(e.g.
identity
theft)
risks
is
not
an
issue
with
Singaporean
youths
as
none
of
them
reveal
their
home
address,
home
telephone
number
or
mobile
numbers
publicly
in
Facebook.
Singaporean
youths
who
reveal
online
personal
contact
information
such
as
instant
messaging
usernames
are
also
in
the
minority
(5%).
Finally,
the
findings
from
the
content
analysis
also
support
the
literature
of
the
MySpace
study
conducted
by
Dwyer,
Hiltz
and
Passernini
(2007),
who
put
forth
that
online
relationships
can
develop
in
sites
where
privacy
safeguards
are
weak,
as
evinced
from
how
some
of
the
youths’
Friends
list
display
over
1000
friends.
6.5
Laying
groundwork
for
online
surveys
From
the
content
analysis,
questions
pertaining
to
the
types
of
personal
information
revealed
in
Facebook
as
well
as
the
breakdown
of
private
and
public
Facebook
profiles
among
Singaporean
youths
have
been
answered.
Although
the
results
of
the
content
analysis
demonstrate
that
Singaporean
youths
are
aware
108
of
and
utilize
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards,
there
is
need
to
examine
the
extent
of
information
revealed,
even
for
private
profiles.
Using
the
results
from
the
content
analysis
as
a
framework,
online
surveys
for
the
youths
were
created
to
obtain
their
privacy
attitudes
as
well
as
utilization
of
Facebook
settings.
This
will
help
to
facilitate
better
understanding
of
youths’
privacy
perceptions
and
personal
information
disclosure
based
on
the
findings
of
content
analysis
and
the
online
surveys.
Chapter
7:
Findings
and
discussion
–
Online
Surveys
7.1
Overview
of
chapter
The
findings
and
analysis
of
the
content
analysis
were
discussed
in
the
previous
chapter.
From
the
content
analysis,
I
gleaned
a
micro-‐perspective
of
how
Singaporean
youths
managed
their
Facebook
profiles
via
their
utilization
of
privacy
settings.
The
results
also
provided
foundation
for
survey
questions
investigating
the
use
of
privacy
settings;
as
well
as
surmising
Singaporean
youths’
attitudes
towards
personal
information
disclosure
and
online
privacy.
In
this
chapter,
findings
from
the
online
surveys
for
parents
and
youths
shall
be
used
to
address
RQ2,
RQ3,
RQ4
and
RQ5
(refer
to
page
55).
Some
themes
that
were
covered
by
the
survey
questions
include:
i)
youths’
attitude
towards
disclosing
their
personal
information
online
and
their
online
privacy
perceptions,
ii)
parents’
attitudes
towards
disclosing
personal
information
online
and
their
online
privacy
perceptions,
as
well
as
iii)
discrepancies,
if
any,
109
between
the
attitudes
and
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths.
This
chapter
shall
then
proceed
to
conclude
with
how
the
survey
findings
contribute
to
the
existing
literature
of
SNS
and
related
topics.
7.2
Representativeness
of
survey
participants
and
data
storage
One
of
the
aims
of
conducting
online
surveys
for
both
Singaporean
parents
and
youths
is
to
aid
in
understanding
their
attitudes
and
values.
For
the
youths,
understanding
their
attitudes
and
values
towards
online
privacy
and
information
disclosure
would
aid
in
comprehending
how
they
utilize
Facebook’s
privacy
settings.
Since
most
of
the
youths’
Facebook
profiles
for
the
content
analysis
are
set
to
private,
the
online
surveys
will
aid
in
understanding
types
of
personal
information
revealed
in
the
private
profiles.
Both
surveys
were
conducted
via
snowball
sampling
of
Singaporean
secondary
school
students
and
parents
with
children
of
secondary
school-‐going
age.
There
were
more
female
(73.6%)
than
male
(26.4%)
youth
respondents
from
independent/autonomous
(17.3%)
and
government
(82.7%)
schools.
There
were
also
more
female
(68%)
than
male
parent
respondents
(32%)
with
most
(91.2%)
of
them
in
white-‐collared
industries.
Both
the
online
surveys
were
created
using
survey
software
and
the
results
were
stored
in
the
servers
till
the
end
of
the
data
collection.
The
results
of
the
surveys
were
downloaded
from
the
servers
at
the
end
of
the
data
collection
and
saved
in
my
laptop
for
data
compilation
and
analyses
using
statistical
software.
110
7.3
Addressing
the
research
questions
RQ2:
What
is
the
extent
and
nature
of
information
disclosure
by
Singaporean
youths?
Types
of
information
I
post
on
my
Facebook
profile
My
name
My
school
name
My
email
address
My
home
address
My
mobile
number
My
blog
address/website
Twitter/Plurk
username
My
instant
messenger
(IM)
username
Personal
picture
of
myself
Number
of
youths
(n=258)
249
144
178
4
13
59
17
38
173
Percentage
students
96.5%
55.7%
68.8%
1.6%
4.9%
22.9%
6.6%
14.7%
67.2%
of
Table
7.1:
Types
of
information
Singaporean
youths
post
in
Facebook
From
the
survey
results,
there
are
more
public
Facebook
profiles
(34%)
among
Singaporean
youths
as
compared
to
the
results
from
the
content
analysis
(1%).
A
possible
reason
for
this
considerable
disparity
may
be
due
to
the
network
sampling
method
employed
for
content
analysis.
Encountering
youths
who
own
private
Facebook
profiles
where
they
reveal
their
school
networks
would
likely
lead
me
to
their
friends
on
Facebook
who
also
reveal
their
school
networks
on
their
private
Facebook
profiles.
Blog
IM
Twitter
Home
Residential
Mobile
Home
Email
address
username
username
Address
area
number
number
address
13
4
0
165
13
38
21
8
2
17
4
0
17
51
80
93
0
3
17
4
4
38
17
89
89
4
4
25
42
4
8
85
30
30
38
5
55
34
38
8
34
4
13
76
6
42
93
21
0
51
4
0
51
7
80
51
38
17
17
0
8
51
8
(Least
68
8
144
0
13
4
0
25
1(Most
private)
private)
Table
7.2:
Privacy
values
attached
to
types
of
personal
information
in
Facebook
111
From
the
two
tables
above,
we
can
see
that
Singaporean
youths
generally
reveal
in
their
Facebook
profiles
online
personal
information
that
they
feel
are
less
private,
from
the
ranking
in
Table
7.2:
email
address,
IM
username
and
blog
address.
Based
on
the
content
analysis,
the
types
of
offline
personal
information
posted
in
Facebook
are
limited
to
real
names
and
photos.
Most
(79%)
youths
use
their
photos
as
profile
photos
and
their
real
names
in
Facebook.
Also,
from
Tables
7.1
and
7.2,
we
are
able
to
discern
the
top
four
types
of
personal
information
youths
deem
most
private,
in
descending
order:
home
address,
home
number,
mobile
number
and
residential
area,
which
are
also
the
least
frequent
personal
information
disclosed
in
Facebook
in
both
public
and
private
profiles.
Thus,
we
can
conclude
that
youths
view
their
offline
personal
information
as
more
private
than
their
online
personal
information.
This
is
indicative
of
their
attitudes
towards
online
privacy:
as
they
are
less
likely
to
share
their
offline
personal
information
vis
a
vis
their
online
personal
information
in
an
online
environment.
This
attitude
is
extended
to
their
status
updates,
where
26%
of
youths
reveal
their
physical
location
in
their
Facebook.
Given
the
nature
of
the
online
environment,
youths
were
also
asked
about
the
veracity
of
their
personal
information
in
Facebook.
The
results
are
tabulated
below:
112
Types
of
profile
information
which
are
true
Number
of
youths
(n=258)
School
165
Name
211
Age
118
Email
Address
178
Mobile
number
8
Home
address
2
Personal
information:
Likes,
activities,
favorites
165
Date
of
birth
199
Education
and
work
131
Table
7.3:
Veracity
of
personal
information
that
Singaporean
youths
post
on
Facebook
From
Table
7.3,
we
can
see
that
other
types
of
offline
personal
information
that
youths
post
in
Facebook
include
their
date
of
birth
(199)
and
education-‐related
information
(131).
The
discrepancy
between
age
(118)
and
date
of
birth
(119)
may
be
attributed
to
Facebook’s
policy
of
only
allowing
teenagers
13
and
above
register
for
a
Facebook
account,
which
may
result
in
youths
including
only
the
month
and
day
without
displaying
their
birth
year.
The
discrepancy
between
Tables
7.1
and
7.3
for
mobile
number
(13
versus
8)
and
home
address
(4
versus
2)
suggest
that
the
offline
personal
information
in
Facebook
may
not
be
true.
Based
on
the
survey
results,
only
a
few
youths
reveal
their
home
address
(2%)
and
mobile
number
(5%)
in
their
Facebook
profiles.
This
is
somewhat
consistent
with
the
findings
of
the
content
analysis;
where
it
was
observed
that
youths
who
post
their
mobile
numbers
in
Facebook
have
private
profiles,
where
only
family
members
and
friends
have
access.
113
Therefore,
from
the
findings,
it
may
be
concluded
that
in
terms
of
the
nature
of
personal
information
posted
in
Facebook,
youths
are
more
forthcoming
with
sharing
their
online
than
their
offline
contact
information.
Youths
are
more
likely
to
post
the
truth
about
their
schools,
names,
email
addresses,
dates
of
birth
and
their
preferences
and
activities
in
Facebook.
RQ3:
To
what
extent
are
Singaporean
parents
aware
of
the
nature
of
information
disclosure
that
their
teenage
children
reveal
in
Facebook?
In
order
to
understand
the
extent
to
which
Singaporean
parents
are
aware
of
their
teenage
children’s
nature
of
information
disclosure
in
Facebook,
we
need
to
ascertain
parents’
knowledge
of
their
children’s
level
of
information
privacy
in
Facebook.
To
achieve
that,
we
need
to
establish
what
the
parents
think
their
youths
are
posting
on
Facebook
and
compare
it
to
what
the
youths
are
posting.
Similar
questions
were
posed
in
the
online
surveys
to
both
the
parents
and
youths:
parents
were
also
asked
basic
questions
on
how
familiar
they
are
with
Facebook;
if
they
owned
a
Facebook
account,
their
Facebook
privacy
settings;
whether
they
speak
to
their
children
about
information
privacy
protection
online,
and
whether
they
are
aware
of
their
teenage
children
using
Facebook’s
privacy
settings.
Topics
discussed
with
your
teenage
children
Number
of
parents
Percentage
about
online
safety
(n=101)
parents
Revealing
personal
information
online
101
100%
Chatting
with
strangers
91
90.9%
Posting
pictures
and
videos
of
themselves
online
82
81.2%
Revealing
their
whereabouts
and
activities
online
82
81.2%
of
Table
7.4:
Topics
about
online
safety
that
parents
discuss
with
their
teenagers
114
Steps
to
enhance
your
teenager
children’s
online
safety
Talk
to
my
teenager
about
online
safety
Number
of
Percentage
parents
(n=101)
of
parents
101
100%
Show
my
teenager
reports
of
online
bullying,
incidences
90
89.1%
harassment,
etc.
Install
software
to
monitor
my
teenager’s
online
activities.
47
46.5%
Install
software
to
prevent
my
teenager
from
accessing
certain
38
37.7%
websites.
Restrict
usage
of
computer
to
schoolwork,
checking
of
email.
21
20.7%
I
do
not
do
any
of
the
above,
I
believe
my
teenager
is
safe
online.
21
20.7%
Table
7.5:
Steps
taken
by
parents
to
enhance
their
teenagers’
online
safety
From
Tables
7.4
and
7.5,
100%
of
have
heard
of
Facebook
and
82%
of
them
are
on
Facebook.
Of
the
parents
who
are
on
Facebook,
all
of
them
have
set
their
Facebook
privacy
settings
to
medium
and
high,
which
support
that
most
parents
understand
the
workings
of
the
privacy
settings
and
are
mostly
privacy-‐
oriented.
From
Tables
7.4
and
7.5,
100%
of
parents
have
spoken
to
their
children
about
protecting
personal
information
online,
with
the
most
frequent
online
safety
discussion
topics
being
revealing
personal
information
online
(100%)
and
chatting
with
strangers
online
(90.9%).
From
the
tables,
it
is
also
noted
that
Singaporean
parents
favour
non-‐technical
methods
to
enhance
their
teenagers’
online
safety,
such
as
talking
to
them
(100%)
and
showing
them
incidences
of
online
dangers
(89%)
over
installing
software
(46.5%)
and
restricting
their
teenage
children’s
online
activities
(20.7%).
This
demonstrates
the
trust
that
parents
have
in
their
teenage
children
when
it
comes
to
online
safety.
115
Out
of
the
101
parents
who
completed
the
survey,
82%
claim
to
be
aware
of
their
teenage
children
possessing
a
SNS
profile
and
64%
are
aware
of
their
teenage
children
using
Facebook
privacy
settings.
However,
bearing
in
mind
that
in
surveys,
respondents
tend
to
overstate
their
claims,
questions
that
test
parents’
knowledge
of
their
children’s
Facebook
information
privacy
were
also
asked.
For
personal
information
disclosure
in
Facebook,
82%
of
parents
believe
that
their
children
use
real
names
in
Facebook,
vis
a
vis
82%
(Table
6.3)
of
youths
who
use
their
real
name
in
their
Facebook
profiles.
From
this,
it
can
be
postulated
that
most
parents
are
aware
of
the
basic
types
of
personal
information
disclosure
by
youths
in
Facebook.
How
often
do
you
think
your
child
uses
Number
of
parents
Percentage
of
parents
Facebook?
(n=101)
A
few
times
a
month
9
8.9%
A
few
times
a
week
37
36.6%
Daily
28
27.7%
More
than
once
a
day
27
26.7%
Table
7.6:
Parents’
impression
of
their
teenage
children’s
Facebook
usage
How
often
do
you
use
Facebook?
Number
of
youths
Percentage
(n=258)
youths
A
few
times
a
month
13
4.9%
A
few
times
a
week
102
39.5%
Daily
84
32.6%
More
than
once
a
day
59
22.8%
of
Table
7.7:
Youths’
Facebook
usage
116
Types
of
information
your
teenager
Number
of
parents
Percentage
posts
in
his/her
Facebook
profile
(n=101)
parents
Blog
address
56
55.4%
Instant
messaging
(IM)
username
48
47.5%
Twitter
username
3
3.0%
Home
address
37
36.6%
Residential
address
37
36.6%
Mobile
number
0
0%
Home
number
0
0%
Email
address
97
96%
of
Table
7.8:
Types
of
information
parents
think
their
teenage
children
post
in
Facebook
Comparing
the
results
of
the
parents’
knowledge
of
youths’
information
privacy
vis
a
vis
the
youths’
answers
to
similar
questions
in
the
tables
above,
the
most
common
types
of
information
youths
(Table
7.1)
post
in
their
Facebook
profiles
are
email
addresses,
blog
addresses,
IM
and
Twitter
usernames,
which
is
the
same
order
as
what
parents
think
youths
reveal
in
Facebook
(Table
7.8).
In
terms
of
their
knowledge
on
their
teenage
children’s
Facebook
habits,
64%
of
parents
think
their
teenage
children
are
on
Facebook
everyday
or
a
few
times
a
week.
This
observation
concurs
with
the
youths’
responses
on
their
frequency
of
Facebook
usage
(Table
7.7).
This
lends
credence
to
the
parents’
claim
on
possessing
an
understanding
of
their
teenage
children’s
Facebook
usage.
However,
from
Table
7.8,
37%
of
parents
think
their
teenage
children
reveal
their
home
address,
when
only
2%
of
youths
reveal
it
in
their
Facebook
profiles.
Interestingly,
parents
do
not
think
that
their
teenage
children
post
information
117
such
as
their
home
and
mobile
numbers
on
their
Facebook
profiles,
which
is
contrary
to
what
youths
claim
to
reveal
about
themselves
in
Facebook.
Although
a
minority,
some
youths
(5%)
do
reveal
their
mobile
numbers
in
Facebook.
Perhaps
a
reason
as
to
why
Singaporean
parents
in
general
have
a
good
understanding
of
their
teenage
children’s
Facebook
personal
information
disclosure
and
habits
stem
from
their
teenage
children
being
their
source
of
knowledge
about
online
safety
(Table
7.9).
Conversations
Newspapers
Friends
Family
Magazines
Schools
Government
Internet
Books
90
21
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
2
10
33
0
36
0
9
0
0
0
3
0
17
21
17
11
3
6
20
0
4
0
20
27
0
11
26
5
0
7
5
0
0
11
18
26
0
31
6
0
6
0
10
11
12
14
30
0
0
17
7
0
0
31
3
26
0
7
31
0
8
0
0
10
4
0
27
8
18
18
9
(Least
1
0
0
1
0
0
19
7
38
with
my
children
1
(Most
frequent
)
frequent)
Table
7.9:
Parents’
most
frequent
sources
of
information
for
online
safety
Parents’
top
three
sources
of
information
for
online
safety,
in
descending
order,
are:
conversations
with
children;
family;
friend.
It
seems
like
word
of
mouth
works
better
for
parents
than
official
sources
such
as
magazines
or
books.
This
suggests
that
online
safety
discussions
between
parents
and
youths
are
not
one-‐
way
dialectic
discussions,
but
rather,
a
two-‐way
communication
process
where
parents
learn
from
them
as
well.
118
Overall,
some
Singaporean
parents
demonstrate
a
good
understanding
of
their
children’s
Facebook
habits
and
the
personal
information
their
youths
disclose
in
Facebook.
However,
Singaporean
parents
are
aware
that
some
youths
post
their
home
addresses
and
mobile
numbers.
Instead
of
dismissing
Singaporean
parents
as
unaware;
from
the
way
the
question
was
posed
in
the
survey,
parents
may
believe
that
other
youths
post
their
home
addresses
and
mobile
numbers
on
Facebook,
but
not
their
own
youths.
RQ4:
How
safe
do
Singaporean
parents
perceive
their
teenage
children
to
be
in
Facebook?
Singaporean
parents
are
generally
concerned
about
their
teenage
children’s
safety
online,
with
36%
of
parents
who
do
not
think
that
their
teenage
children
are
safe
online
from
harassment
from
strangers
and
90%
who
do
not
think
that
Facebook
is
safe
for
posting
personal
information.
However,
Singaporean
parents
mitigate
their
concerns
by
keeping
abreast
of
their
youths’
online
activities
by
talking
to
them
about
online
safety
(100%)
and
showing
them
reports
of
online
bullying
and
harassment
(89.1%)
(Table
7.5).
Although
parents
are
involved
in
their
youths’
online
safety
education,
64.4%
find
it
difficult
to
monitor
their
youths’
activities
online
and
92%
feel
that
schools
should
take
on
a
bigger
role
in
educating
youths
about
online
safety.
Concerns
about
teenage
child’s
online
social
interactions
Spending
too
much
time
online
at
the
expense
of
schoolwork
Number
of
parents
(n=101)
73
Percentage
of
parents
72.3%
Meeting
strangers
online
37
36.6%
Making
friends
with
unsavory
characters
online
18
17.8%
Spending
too
much
time
online
at
the
expense
of
other
offline
activities
55
54.5%
119
Spending
too
much
time
online
at
the
expense
of
sleep
and
health
83
82.2%
Me
as
a
parent
not
knowing
what
my
child
is
doing
online
28
27.7%
My
child
posting
too
much
personal
information
(mobile
number,
27
26.7%
address)
online
Table
7.10:
Parental
concerns
about
teenage
children’s
online
social
interactions
From
Table
7.10,
when
it
comes
to
the
aspects
of
their
teenage
children’s
online
social
interactions,
parents
are
more
concerned
that
their
teenage
children
are
spending
too
much
time
online
at
the
expense
of
sleep
and
health
(82.2%)
and
schoolwork
(72.3%);
rather
than
their
children
meeting
strangers
online
(36.6%)
or
their
children
posting
too
much
personal
information
online
(26.7%).
How
Facebook
aids
in
your
child’s
development
Number
of
parents
Percentage
of
(n=101)
parents
Develop
better
social
skills
64
63.4%
Promote
more
interaction
with
peers
73
72.3%
Understand
how
the
Internet
works
46
45.5%
Be
up
to
date
on
technological
trends
55
54.5%
Help
with
projects
and
school
assignments
46
45.5%
Keep
in
touch
with
friends
and
classmates
92
91.1%
Table
7.11:
Parents’
perceptions
of
how
Facebook
aids
in
teenage
children’s
development
Besides
Singaporean
parents’
concerns
about
Facebook,
from
Table
7.11,
Singaporean
parents
acknowledge
that
Facebook
can
aid
in
their
children’s
development
by
helping
them
keep
in
touch
with
friends
and
classmates
(91.1%),
promoting
more
interaction
with
peers
(72.3%)
while
developing
better
social
skills
(63.4%).
120
Overall,
Singaporean
parents
are
skeptical
about
their
teenage
children’s
safety
in
Facebook.
However,
their
cautiousness
is
tempered
with
an
acceptance
of
how
they
are
unable
to
keep
an
eye
on
their
teenage
children’s
activities
online
all
the
time.
Singaporean
parents
are
not
passive:
they
discuss
with
their
youths
about
online
safety.
Singaporean
parents
also
acknowledge
the
benefits
of
Facebook
for
their
youths’
development
and
prioritizing
physical
and
mental
well-‐being
highly
when
it
comes
to
youths
and
the
Internet.
RQ5:
Are
there
disparities
between
youths’
and
parents’
perceptions
of
the
risks
of
information
disclosure
vis
a
vis
Facebook?
In
order
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
youths’
and
parents’
perceptions
of
the
risks
of
information
disclosure
in
Facebook,
their
attitudes
and
privacy
values
were
assessed.
Parents’
and
youths’
attitudes
towards
privacy
were
determined
using
a
five-‐
point
Likert
scale
attitude
survey.
During
computing
of
the
responses
for
data
analysis,
“Strongly
agree/Agree”
and
Strongly
disagree/Disagree”
responses
were
pooled,
to
create
three
major
columns,
not
five.
This
is
to
get
a
general
sense
of
the
respondents’
privacy
perceptions.
They
are
broken
down
into
three
sets
of
figures:
the
mean,
female
and
male
responses
(Table
7.12).
Group
Statistics
Gender
Privacy
Perception
Female
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
190
2.3184
.72003
.05224
Mean
Male
68
Table
7.12:
Privacy
perceptions
of
youths
2.3456
.63632
.07717
121
The
privacy
perceptions
of
males
(M
=
2.35,
SE
=
0.077),
are
similar
to
females
youths
(M
=
2.32,
SE
=
0.052).
The
lower
the
mean,
the
more
privacy-‐oriented
the
individual.
The
distribution
between
females
and
males
is
also
mixed,
with
more
female
(N
=
190)
than
male
youths
(N
=
68)
participating
in
the
study.
Group
Statistics
Category
Privacy
Perception
d
Mean
i
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
Mean
Student
258
2.3256
.69783
.04345
Parents
101
2.7178
1.00602
.10010
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
1
Table
7.13:
Privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths
–
Independent-samples
t
Test
Independent
Samples
Test
Levene's
Test
for
Equality
of
Variances
F
Privacy
Perception
Equal
variances
assumed
Sig.
17.719
.000
Mean
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Table
7.14:
Privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths
–
Independent-samples
t
Test
Independent
Samples
Test
Privacy
Perception
Equal
variances
assumed
t-‐test
for
Equality
of
Means
t
-‐4.197
df
Sig.
(2-‐tailed)
357
Mean
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-‐3.594
139.297
Table
7.15:
Privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths
–
Independent-samples
t
Test
.000
.000
122
From
the
above
tables,
an
independent-‐samples
t
test
comparing
the
mean
scores
of
the
parents
and
youths
found
a
significant
difference
between
the
means
of
the
two
groups
(t(357)=-‐4.19,
p
<
.001).
The
mean
of
the
parents
was
higher
(m=2.72,
sd=1.00)
than
the
youths
(m=2.33,
sd=.70).
The
t-‐test
revealed
that
parents
are
significantly
more
guarded
about
privacy
(M
=
2.72,
SE
=
0.10)
than
youths
(M
=
2.33,
SE
=
0.043),
t(357)
=
-‐4.19,
p
<
.001,
r
=
.22.
After
gleaning
an
understanding
of
Singaporean
youths’
general
online
privacy
perceptions
vis
a
vis
parents,
I
proceeded
to
segment
the
parents
and
youths
according
to
their
privacy
values
using
the
Westin
privacy
segmentation
into
three
groups:
privacy
fundamentalists,
privacy
pragmatics
and
privacy
unconcerneds.
Both
parents
and
youths
were
asked
a
series
of
questions
based
on
the
Westin
classification.
Based
on
their
responses,
parents
and
youths
are
mapped
to
the
Westin
privacy
segmentation
(Harris,
2003),
which
divides
the
population
into
three
groups
based
on
their
level
of
concern
with
regard
to
privacy.
From
these
five
questions,
a
youth
or
parent
is
classified
as
a
Privacy
Fundamentalist
if
he/she
gave
a
privacy-‐oriented
response
to
at
least
three
of
these
five
questions.
The
lower
the
mean,
the
more
privacy-‐oriented
an
individual
is.
This
is
because
the
lower
the
mean,
the
more
the
individual
strongly
agrees/agrees
with
privacy-‐oriented
statements.
Privacy
Pragmatists
123
rate
their
concern
about
privacy
in
their
everyday
lives,
online
privacy
and
information
privacy
significantly
lower
than
Privacy
Fundamentalists
(p
<
.05
for
all),
resulting
in
a
higher
privacy
perception
mean
for
Privacy
Pragmatists
than
Privacy
Fundamentalists.
Privacy
Unconcerned
parents
and
youths
rate
the
same
questions
significantly
higher
than
Privacy
Pragmatists
(p
<
.05
for
all),
resulting
in
higher
mean
for
Privacy
Unconcerneds
than
Privacy
Pragmatists.
Parents
and
youths
are
categorized
based
on
their
answers
to
these
questions:
i)
For
the
purpose
of
this
study,
privacy
is
defined
as
“personal
information
which
is
confined
to
or
intended
only
for,
a
certain
person/group
of
people,
and
not
anyone
else”.
State
your
level
of
agreement
with
this
statement.
ii) In
general,
you
are
concerned
about
your
privacy
when
using
the
Internet.
iii) Facebook
is
not
safe
for
the
posting
of
personal
information
(mobile
number,
addresses).
iv)
It
is
important
to
maintain
personal
information
privacy
(e.g.
mobile
number,
contact
information)
in
Facebook.
v) I
can
count
on
Facebook
to
protect
my
privacy.
Reliability
Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N
of
Items
.668
5
Table
7.16:
Cronbach’s
alpha
for
Westin
privacy
segmentation
124
Item
Statistics
Mean
Facebook
is
not
safe
for
the
posting
of
personal
information
(mobile
number,
addresses).
I
feel
it
is
important
to
maintain
information
privacy
(e.g.
mobile
number,
contact
information)
in
Facebook.
In
general,
you
are
concerned
with
your
privacy
while
using
the
Internet.
I
can
count
on
Facebook
to
protect
my
privacy.
Std.
Deviation
N
2.9612
1.06521
258
1.6899
.84428
258
1.8760
.81339
258
3.1008
1.09718
258
For
the
purpose
of
this
study,
privacy
is
defined
as
“personal
1.6899
.84428
information
that
is
confined
to
or
intended
only
for,
a
certain
person/group
of
people,
and
not
anyone
else”.
State
your
level
of
agreement
with
this
statement.
Table
7.17:
Reliability
statistics
for
Westin
privacy
segmentation
dimensions
–
youths
258
From
the
statistical
analysis
conducted
on
the
questions
posed
to
parents
and
youths,
the
five
questions
are
shown
to
display
internal
consistency
based
on
the
value
of
Cronbach’s
α.
Cronbach’s
α
indicates
how
the
above
statements
are
related
based
on
the
concept
of
privacy.
The
reliability
coefficient
for
the
five
questions
show
high
reliability,
Cronbach’s
α
=
.67.
From
the
item
statistics,
we
can
see
that
for
Singaporean
youths,
their
mean
for
questions
on
general
privacy,
information
privacy
and
online
privacy
is
less
than
two,
which
means
that
most
of
the
youth
respondents
are
privacy-‐oriented.
However,
they
maintain
a
neutral
position
on
questions
pertaining
to
trusting
Facebook
with
their
personal
information.
Westin
privacy
segmentation
-
Youths
Statistics
Category
N
Valid
258
Mean
1.4109
Mode
1.00
125
Category
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
160
44.6
62.0
62.0
2.00
90
25.1
34.9
96.9
3.00
8
2.2
3.1
100.0
258
71.9
100.0
258
100.0
Total
Total
Table
7.18:
Percentage
of
youths
who
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds
From
the
above
results,
Categories
1,
2
and
3
refer
to
respondents’
privacy
orientation
based
on
the
mean
of
the
five
questions.
Category
1
respondents
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists,
Category
2
Privacy
Pragmatists
and
Category
3
Privacy
Unconcerneds.
From
Table
7.18,
it
can
be
surmised
from
the
mean
that
youths
privacy-‐oriented.
Most
youths
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists
(44.6%)
and
Privacy
Pragmatists
(25.1%),
with
8%
Privacy
Unconcerneds.
From
the
findings,
it
can
be
surmised
that
youths
do
value
privacy.
Also,
the
privacy
values
in
their
everyday
life
are
extended
to
their
privacy
perceptions
online
and
encompass
the
protection
of
their
personal
information
on
Facebook.
Westin
privacy
segmentation
-
Parents
Statistics
Category
N
Mean
Valid
101
1.534
126
Statistics
Category
N
Valid
Mean
101
1.534
Mode
1.00
Category
Frequency
Valid
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1.00
92
91.1
91.1
91.1
2.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.00
9
8.9
8.9
100.0
101
101
100.0
101
100.0
Total
Total
Percent
Table
7:19:
Percentage
of
parents
who
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists/Pragmatists/Unconcerneds
The
results
for
Singaporean
parents
indicate
that
most
(91.1%)
parents
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists
and
9%
Privacy
Unconcerneds.
It
is
interesting
to
note
for
parents,
there
are
no
Privacy
Pragmatists.
This
seems
to
indicate
a
disparity
among
parents
when
it
comes
to
privacy-‐orientation.
It
is
not
unexpected
that
is
a
higher
percentage
of
parents
who
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists
compared
to
the
youths.
Since
the
privacy
attitudes
mean
for
both
parents
and
youths
are
less
than
two,
both
groups
are
privacy-‐oriented
and
concerned
about
their
offline/online
privacy
and
information
privacy.
127
However,
parents
are
more
skeptical
when
it
comes
to
trusting
Facebook
with
their
personal
information,
with
99%
Privacy
Fundamentalists
while
25.1%
of
youths
taking
on
a
more
Privacy
Pragmatist
perspective.
Therefore,
youths
are
more
likely
than
their
parents
to
post
their
personal
information
on
Facebook,
even
though
54%
of
youths
have
not
read
Facebook’s
privacy
policy.
One-way
ANOVA
–
Parents
and
youths
Privacy
Perception
Mean
Sum
of
Squares
Between
Groups
df
Mean
Square
F
11.867
3
3.956
Within
Groups
225.660
356
.636
Total
237.526
359
Sig.
6.223
.000
Multiple
Comparisons
Privacy
Perception
Mean
LSD
(I)
Gender
(J)
Gender
Mean
Difference
(I-‐J)
Female
Student
Male
Student
Female
Parent
Male
Parent
Std.
Error
Sig.
Male
Student
-‐.02717
.11267
.810
Female
Parent
-‐.33783*
.11523
.004
Male
Parent
-‐.50590*
.14327
.000
.02717
.11267
.810
Female
Parent
-‐.31066*
.13885
.026
Male
Parent
-‐.47874*
.16287
.004
Female
Student
.33783*
.11523
.004
Male
Student
.31066*
.13885
.026
Male
Parent
-‐.16807
.16466
.308
Female
Student
.50590*
.14327
.000
Male
Student
.47874*
.16287
.004
Female
Student
Female
Parent
.16807
.16466
Table
7.20:
Comparison
of
privacy
perception
means
across
gender
for
parents
and
youths
.308
128
A
one-‐way
ANOVA
was
computed
comparing
the
privacy
perceptions
of
parents
and
youths,
as
well
as
among
parents
and
youths,
segmented
by
gender
as
an
independent
variable.
The
analysis
revealed
that
there
is
no
significant
difference
between
parents
and
youths
(F(3,
355)=
6.22,
p
<
.01).
Additional
findings
from
the
online
surveys
indicate
that
although
72%
of
student
respondents
are
concerned
about
the
consequences
of
sharing
personal
information
on
Facebook,
there
exists
a
conundrum.
31.4%
of
youths
do
not
trust
Facebook
with
the
safekeeping
of
their
personal
information
and
19.8%
feel
that
it
is
important
to
maintain
information
privacy
in
Facebook,
yet
youths
are
still
posting
their
personal
information
in
Facebook.
While
parents
and
youth
assent
with
their
general
perceptions
of
online
privacy,
a
palpable
difference
in
Facebook
privacy
perceptions
exists,
with
90%
of
parents
who
are
critical
of
information
privacy
in
Facebook
vis
a
vis
31.4%
of
youths.
This
difference
may
be
explained
by
how
youths
(67%)
feel
that
their
friends
are
able
to
understand
them
better
via
Facebook,
which
is
why
although
youths
do
not
fully
trust
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards,
they
still
post
their
personal
information.
However,
the
types
of
personal
information
posted
by
youths
in
Facebook
may
be
affected,
as
evinced
from
how
most
youths
do
not
post
personal
information
such
as
their
residential
address
and
mobile
numbers
in
Facebook.
129
7.4
Discussion
from
findings
of
online
surveys
7.4.1
Youths’
self-assessment
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards
From
the
literature
on
privacy
surveys,
one
of
the
common
challenges
of
privacy
surveys
is
the
tendency
of
subjects
to
over-‐report
their
understanding
of
privacy-‐related
issues
and
their
willingness
to
act
in
order
to
protect
their
privacy.
In
the
context
of
this
study,
youths
may
feel
that
the
onus
is
on
them
and
not
Facebook
to
protect
their
personal
information.
Therefore
there
is
need
to
assess
youths
on
their
knowledge
on
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards.
In
order
to
determine
if
a
perception
gap
is
present,
a
knowledge
challenge
was
included
in
the
survey.
The
challenge
was
based
on
one
of
the
most
commonly
used
features
in
Facebook
–
photo
tagging.
This
question
tested
youths’
understanding
of
how
Facebook’s
privacy
settings
work.
Youths
were
posed
the
following
question
in
their
online
survey:
“Your
friend
has
taken
photos
of
you
and
posted
them
in
his
Facebook
albums
which
he
has
set
to
private
(only
his
friends
are
able
to
view)
and
tagged
you.
Who
do
you
think
will
be
able
to
see
photos
of
you?
Select
as
many
as
apply.”
Youths
were
then
provided
a
list
of
options.
How
the
knowledge
challenge
worked
was
to
sieve
out
those
who
were
aware
of
Facebook’s
photo
tagging
privacy
settings.
Out
of
the
list
of
six
options,
only
four
are
correct,
based
on
130
Facebook’s
latest
privacy
safeguards
as
of
March
2010.
Only
youths
who
selected
all
four
of
the
options
were
correct,
any
youth
who
selected
more
or
less
than
the
four
correct
options
was
deemed
to
have
answered
the
question
incorrectly.
Out
of
the
258
youths,
150
passed
the
knowledge
challenge.
Comparing
the
percentage
of
youth
respondents
who
got
the
knowledge
challenge
correct
(58%)
to
the
percentage
of
youths
who
claimed
they
were
aware
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards
for
photos
and
videos
(74%),
there
is
a
discrepancy
between
what
youths
claim
to
know
about
Facebook’s
information
privacy
safeguards
and
their
actual
knowledge
of
the
privacy
safeguards.
A
dissonance
between
what
youths
think
they
know
and
how
much
they
actually
know
about
Facebook’s
privacy
settings
may
result
in
them
being
lulled
into
a
false
sense
of
security.
They
may
reveal
more
personal
information
in
Facebook
without
fully
understanding
that
strangers
on
Facebook
have
access
to
their
personal
information.
7.4.2
Knowledge
versus
practice
Following
up
on
the
comparison
between
what
youths
claim
to
know
about
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards
to
what
they
actually
know,
it
is
pertinent
to
not
only
understand
youths’
knowledge
of
Facebook’s
privacy
settings,
but
also
how
much
of
what
they
understand
is
translated
into
action.
131
With
two-‐thirds
(67%)
of
the
youth
respondents
setting
their
Facebook
privacy
at
medium
and
high,
which
is
supported
by
the
content
analysis
findings
indicating
that
most
youths
have
private
profiles,
it
is
apparent
that
youths
are
aware
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards.
Youths
were
also
asked
about
their
level
of
awareness
of
the
privacy
settings
for
the
various
Facebook
subsections
–
About
Me
(IM
screen
name,
mobile
number,
address,
website);
Personal
Information
(interests,
activities,
favorites);
Birthday;
Religious
and
political
views;
Family
and
relationship;
Photos
and
videos;
Education
and
work.
Aware
of
the
following
privacy
protection
settings:
Number
of
youths
Percentage
(n=258)
youths
211
81.7%
“About
Me”:
Website,
Hometown/City
169
65.5%
“Personal
information”:
Interests,
activities,
favourites
169
65.5%
“Birthday”:
Date
of
birth
187
72.5%
Religious
and
political
views
152
58.9%
Family
and
relationship:
Family
members,
relationship
173
67%
Photos
and
videos
190
73.6%
Education
and
work
156
60.5%
“About
Me”:
IM
screen
name,
mobile
phone,
other
phone,
of
address
status
Table
7.21:
Percentage
of
youths
who
are
aware
of
the
various
Facebook
privacy
safeguards
From
Table
7.20,
all
the
Facebook
types
of
personal
information
had
more
than
50%
positive
response
rate
from
youths,
with
the
top
three
privacy
settings
that
youths
are
aware
of,
in
descending
order:
“About
Me
–
IM
screen
name,
mobile
number,
address”
(81.7%);
“Photos
and
videos”
(73.6%);
and
“Birthday”
(72.5%).
132
Utilize
following
privacy
protection
settings:
Number
of
(n=258)
“About
Me”:
IM
screen
name,
mobile
phone,
other
169
youths
Percentage
of
youths
65.5%
phone,
address
“About
Me”:
Website,
Hometown/City
“Personal
information”:
Interests,
97
37.6%
activities,
97
37.6%
favourites
“Birthday”:
Date
of
birth
114
44.2%
Religious
and
political
views
72
27.9%
Family
and
relationship:
Family
members,
106
41.1%
Photos
and
videos
148
57.4%
Education
and
work
93
36.0%
relationship
status
Table
7.22:
Percentage
of
youths
who
utilize
the
various
Facebook
privacy
safeguards
From
Table
7.22,
two
types
of
personal
information
obtained
a
greater
than
50%
positive
response
rate.
The
top
three
types
of
personal
information
which
Singaporean
Facebook
users
activate
privacy
settings
for
are:
“About
Me
–
IM
screen
name,
mobile
number,
address”
(65.5%);
“Photos
and
videos”
(57.4%)
and
“Birthday”
(44.2%).
Based
on
Tables
7.20
and
7.21,
the
top
three
types
of
personal
information
for
awareness
are
also
the
top
three
types
of
personal
information
which
youths
utilize
privacy
safeguards.
This
set
of
findings
is
backed
up
with
the
results
of
the
content
analysis
of
the
Facebook
profiles
conducted
prior
to
the
surveys.
For
the
youths’
private
profiles
on
Facebook,
none
publicly
displayed
IM
screen
names,
mobile
numbers
or
address
as
well
as
photos
and
videos.
133
When
comparing
Tables
7.19
and
7.20,
it
was
noted
that
only
“About
Me
–
IM
screen
name,
mobile
number,
address”
and
“Photos
and
videos”
achieved
a
greater
than
50%
positive
response
for
both
tables.
From
this,
it
can
be
deduced
that
youths
deem
personal
information
like
mobile
numbers,
residential
addresses,
IM
usernames
and
their
photos
and
videos
as
personal
information
that
are
more
private
than
education
and
work.
The
percentage
of
youths
who
utilize
privacy
protection
settings
for
photos
and
videos
was
the
same
as
the
number
of
youths
who
answered
the
knowledge
challenge
correctly
–
58%,
which
can
be
used
to
support
the
reliability
of
the
knowledge
challenge.
Therefore,
it
can
be
concluded
that
the
types
of
personal
information
youths
consider
most
private
–
mobile
numbers,
home
addresses
and
numbers,
photos
and
videos
are
unique
and
have
identifiers
imbued
in
them.
Mobile
numbers
and
addresses
are
information
unique
to
the
individual;
photos
and
videos
identify
and
single
out
an
individual
from
the
group.
Other
types
of
personal
information
such
as
IM
and
Twitter
usernames
offer
some
form
of
anonymity,
“Interests,
activities
and
favourites”,
“Religious
and
political
views”
as
well
as
“Education
and
Work”
allows
youths
to
blend
into
a
group
identity;
thus,
revealing
one’s
secondary
school
is
deemed
less
of
a
privacy
risk
as
compared
to
revealing
one’s
residential
address
or
mobile
number
publicly
on
Facebook.
Finally,
the
results
from
comparing
the
level
of
awareness
and
level
of
utility
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards
also
confirm
the
presence
of
a
perception
gap,
134
where
youths
think
they
understand
the
workings
Facebook’s
privacy
settings
when
they
actually
do
not.
7.5
Contribution
of
study
to
current
literature
7.5.1
Negotiation
and
management
of
identity
in
Facebook
From
current
SNS
literature,
boyd
(2008)
concluded
that
youths
believe
that
SNS
should
be
their
private
space
online
while
most
parents
disagree
with
this,
as
they
believe
that
nothing
posted
online
is
private.
Findings
from
my
study
support
the
parents’
perspective.
From
my
online
surveys,
Singaporean
parents
are
generally
Privacy
Fundamentalists
who
are
privacy-‐oriented
and
are
distrustful
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards.
From
the
surveys,
most
youths’
Facebook
profiles
are
set
to
private,
lending
credence
to
boyd’s
conclusion.
7.5.2
Parental
concerns
and
Facebook
As
the
online
surveys
were
targeted
at
both
parents
and
youths,
I
managed
to
glean
information
on
the
privacy
perceptions
from
both
demographics
and
obtained
a
more
holistic
understanding
of
parental
concerns
vis
a
vis
Facebook.
My
findings
support
Buckingham’s
study
in
2008,
that
parents
tend
to
lean
towards
the
critical
view
of
digital
technology
but
are
also
aware
of
the
permanence
of
technology
and
it
is
to
their
children’s
benefit
to
be
familiar
with
the
technology.
Singaporean
parents
are
concerned
about
their
youths’
safety
online,
but
also
believe
that
Facebook
is
beneficial
to
their
youths’
development.
Singaporean
parents
are
keen
to
improve
their
children’s
educational
prospects
via
SNS,
but
are
also
concerned
about
online
dangers,
which
reasonates
with
the
135
conclusions
drawn
by
Turow
and
Nir
(2000),
Livingstone
(2002),
and
(2003).
I
found
that
Singaporean
parents
are
wary
of
online
privacy
but
believe
that
SNS
is
becoming
a
mainstay
in
the
lives
of
their
teenage
children.
My
findings
corroborate
with
the
research
of
Turow
and
Nir
(2000),
Livingstone
and
Bovill
(2001),
Buckingham
(2002),
that
parents
believe
SNS
can
help
in
their
youths’
development;
helping
them
do
better
in
school
and
learn
useful
knowledge.
Amidst
Singaporean
parents’
general
optimism
with
regard
to
Facebook,
they
share
the
same
concerns
as
other
parents
about
Facebook
displacing
more
worthwhile
activities.
Previous
studies
by
Punamaki
and
et.
al.(2006)
and
Kim
and
et.
al.(2009),
concur
with
my
findings
that
Singaporean
parents
main
concerns
about
their
teenage
children
SNS
usage,
is
not
limited
to
online
safety.
Parents
are
more
concerned
about
how
their
teenage
children
are
spending
too
much
time
on
Facebook
and
neglecting
their
schoolwork,
other
offline
activities,
their
health
and
sleep.
From
previous
studies
by
Livingstone
and
Bober
(2006),
parents,
underestimate
the
risks
their
youths
are
experiencing
online.
Parental
anxieties
tend
towards
being
ill-‐informed
and
ineffective
in
supporting
regulation.
To
some
extent,
this
is
true
–
my
findings
indicate
that
parents
are
unaware
that
youths
are
posting
information
such
as
residential
areas
and
mobile
numbers
in
Facebook.
This
may
lead
to
Singaporean
parents
underestimating
the
risks
their
children
are
experiencing
online.
A
possible
reason
for
this
suggested
by
Finkelhor,
Mitchell
136
and
Wolak
(2000)
and
Cameron
and
et.
al.(2005)
might
be
because
parents
are
unaware
of
what
their
children
view
online.
While
this
may
be
true
to
some
extent,
I
note
that
Singaporean
parents
take
a
pro-‐active
stance
in
understanding
the
activities
that
youths
are
engaging
in
Facebook.
A
study
by
Fleming,
et.
al,
(2006)
revealed
that
youths
aged
13-‐14
whose
parents
did
not
discuss
Internet
safety
with
them
are
less
conscious
about
safety
online,
which
may
lead
to
them
posting
personal
information
without
knowledge
of
the
possible
repercussions.
From
my
findings,
Singaporean
parents
discuss
online
safety
with
their
youths,
which
may
explain
for
Singaporean
youths
being
privacy-‐oriented
as
well.
The
discussions
are
two-‐way,
as
Singaporean
parents
cite
conversations
with
their
youths
as
their
main
source
of
information
for
online
safety.
Lastly,
my
findings
resonate
with
the
discussions
of
scholars
like
Williams
(2000)
and
Berson
and
Berson
(2003,
2005),
where
parents
are
urging
schools
to
take
up
a
more
prominent
role
in
educating
and
guiding
youths
about
online
safety.
7.5.3
Policy
and
Facebook
My
findings
agree
with
literature
from
Sithigh
(2008)
that
some
youths
do
not
read
Facebook’s
privacy
policy.
This
is
a
preamble
to
discussions
by
Livingstone
and
Bober
(2006)
on
allocating
responsibility
for
overseeing
youths
online;
not
only
how
to
apportion
such
responsibilities,
but
also
how
to
ensure
coordination
137
across
them.
Within
this,
a
key
point
of
contestation
is
how
far
to
devolve
responsibility
from
the
state
to
the
industry
(via
self
regulation)
or
to
the
individual
citizen
(mainly
parents).
To
address
this
issue
of
allocating
responsibilities
adequately,
a
realistic
understanding
of
youths
is
required
to
avoid
assuming
a
wholly
positive
view
of
their
critical
intelligence
and
social
responsibility.
From
my
findings,
while
most
youths
are
Privacy
Fundamentalists
or
Privacy
Pragmatists,
they
are
also
willing
to
compromise
their
online
privacy
by
posting
personal
information
in
Facebook
although
they
do
not
wholly
trust
Facebook.
However,
they
mitigate
the
risks
online
by
not
revealing
private
personal
information
like
their
residential
address.
The
personal
information
disclosure
behaviors
displayed
by
youths
concur
with
boyd’s
(2008)
suggestion
that
this
is
feeling
of
being
exposed
the
price
that
we
have
to
pay
to
enjoy
social
convergence.
Holloway
and
Valentine
(2003)
discussed
how
the
anxieties
of
some
parents
about
what
their
children
may
do
or
encounter
online
are
exacerbated
by
the
parents’
own
lack
of
ICT
skills.
Also,
there
may
be
some
dissonance
present
between
youths’
perceived
danger
online
and
their
parents’,
caregivers’
and
educators’
perspectives
(Herring,
2008).
This
suggests
that
while
looking
at
the
responses
of
the
majority,
the
perceptions
of
the
minority
may
also
warrant
a
closer
inspection.
From
my
findings,
this
138
concern
is
valid
–
most
of
my
parent
respondents
are
white-‐collar
workers
and
professionals.
Therefore
my
findings
for
parents,
aside
for
its
lower
than
expected
response
rate,
cannot
be
taken
to
represent
the
perspectives
of
blue-‐
collar
workers,
because
parents
as
a
demographic
group
is
not
homogenous.
The
heterogeneous
mix
for
parents,
educators
and
the
government
will
have
implications
for
the
crafting
of
relevant
and
inclusive
policies
and
campaigns.
Chapter
8:
Conclusion
This
chapter
concludes
the
study
by
discussing
its
limitations
as
well
as
implications
on
policymaking.
Proposals
and
suggestions
for
future
studies
shall
also
be
addressed.
8.1
Summary
of
findings
It
should
be
mentioned
from
the
onset
that
the
results
for
this
study
lack
representativeness
due
to
the
constraints
faced
during
data
collection.
However,
for
an
exploratory
study,
the
results
do
make
a
contribution
in
making
a
headstart
with
the
aim
of
facilitating
a
better
understanding
of
the
privacy
perceptions
and
attitudes
of
Singaporean
youths
and
their
parents.
From
the
content
analysis
and
online
surveys
conducted,
it
may
be
surmised
that
Singaporean
youths
are
generally
privacy-‐oriented,
are
aware
of
and
utilize
Facebook’s
privacy
settings.
They
also
have
their
creative
methods
of
masking
their
personal
information
online.
However,
they
are
willing
to
disclose
personal
information
in
Facebook
although
they
do
not
trust
Facebook.
They
manage
the
risk
of
personal
information
disclosure
by
not
revealing
their
offline
contact
139
information
publicly.
It
is
observed
that
there
is
a
privacy
continuum
with
respect
to
the
types
of
personal
information
revealed.
The
more
sensitive
and
private
personal
information
such
as
residential
addresses
and
mobile
numbers
are
less
likely
to
be
revealed
by
youths
in
their
Facebook
profiles.
From
the
above,
we
can
see
that
Singaporean
youths
manage
privacy
better
than
what
has
been
reported
in
the
media.
Singaporean
parents
are
generally
privacy-‐oriented
as
well.
They
are
also
aware
of
the
personal
information
their
youths
reveal
in
Facebook
and
proactively
engage
them
in
conversations
about
online
safety.
They
display
trust
in
their
youths’
judgment
on
personal
information
disclosure,
sometimes
too
much
trust,
as
evinced
from
how
they
think
that
their
youths
do
not
reveal
mobile
numbers
in
Facebook.
They
are
aware
of
the
positive
impacts
of
SNS
and
try
to
achieve
a
balance
between
caution
and
optimism
about
SNS.
The
principal
concern
of
parents
relates
to
their
perception
that
Facebook
is
a
time-‐sink,
rather
than
the
Internet
being
a
threat
to
their
youths’
personal
safety.
This
perception
echoes
parental
concern
over
television
consumption,
video
games
and
other
mediatized
forms
of
youths
passing
time.
Also,
while
parents
and
youths
have
similar
privacy
values,
youths
are
more
likely
to
compromise
on
their
privacy
values
to
gain
recognition
and
understanding
from
their
peers.
140
Overall,
the
results
of
the
study
indicate
that
the
fears
surrounding
the
loss
of
privacy
and
online
predation
in
Facebook
may
be
exaggerated,
at
least
for
the
sample
that
was
under
study.
Although
there
are
limits
in
terms
of
generalizing
these
results,
further
studies
can
be
conducted
to
improve
the
validity
and
generalizability
of
this
study.
8.2
Limitations
of
study
Limitations
of
this
study
include
the
sampling
method
for
content
analysis
and
the
lack
of
representativeness
for
parent
respondents.
The
sampling
method
for
content
analysis,
while
steps
were
taken
to
try
to
ensure
validity,
may
not
be
encompassing
enough
as
only
youths
who
displayed
their
school
networks
were
selected
for
the
content
analysis.
This
was
to
ensure
that
the
Facebook
profiles
selected
belonged
to
secondary
school
students.
Youths
in
Facebook
who
did
not
display
their
school
networks
were
not
selected,
thus
this
might
affect
results
of
the
content
analysis.
I
mitigated
the
effects
of
the
sampling
method
by
ensuring
representativeness
in
the
Facebook
profiles
selected.
Parent
respondents
were
mainly
from
white-‐collared
professions,
affecting
the
generalizability
of
the
results.
Parents
from
other
professions
might
possess
different
online
privacy
perceptions
and
IT
skills
and
this
would
have
repercussions
on
how
they
guide
their
teenage
children
in
SNS.
However,
as
141
privacy
is
an
elastic
concept,
there
is
no
single
best
method
for
guiding
youths
on
online
privacy.
Technical
knowledge
can
be
picked
up
from
parent-‐youths
discussions
about
Facebook,
where
youths
can
explain
the
workings
of
the
technology
to
parents.
Having
open
channels
of
communication
is
thus
the
most
important
element
when
parents
guide
their
youths
on
online
privacy
and
personal
information
disclosure.
8.3
Implications
of
study
on
policy-making
The
idea
of
responsibility
is
of
interest
to
policymakers:
not
only
how
to
apportion
such
responsibilities,
but
also
how
to
ensure
coordination
across
them.
A
key
point
of
contestation
is
how
far
to
devolve
responsibility
from
the
state
to
the
industry
(via
self
regulation)
or
to
the
individual
citizen
(mainly
parents)
(Livingstone
&
Bober,
2006).
To
answer
this,
the
current
situation
is
assessed
from
my
findings
before
determining
if
a
light
touch
is
enough
or
if
greater
enforcement
and
policing
is
required.
For
policy
makers,
the
knowledge
gleaned
from
this
study
can
aid
in
formulating
future
policies
and
campaigns.
My
findings
indicate
how
students
utilizing
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards
understand
its
nuances
better
than
students
who
are
aware
but
who
do
not
utilize
the
privacy
safeguards.
Hence,
encouraging
youths
to
try
out
the
various
levels
of
privacy
safeguards
in
a
hands-‐on
fashion
can
be
adopted
to
complement
existing
school
talks
and
symposiums
as
awareness
do
not
always
translate
into
action
for
youths.
142
While
my
results
that
agree
with
Livingstone
and
Bober’s
2006
study
that
youths’
enthusiasm
for
SNS
is
resulting
in
some
risky
behaviors
such
as
revealing
offline
contact
information
to
strangers,
such
incidences
are
far
and
between
for
Singaporean
youths.
My
findings
indicate
that
currently,
parents
are
aware
of
the
risks
their
youths
face
online
and
are
discussing
with
their
youths
to
rein
their
enthusiasm
and
use
SNS
responsibly.
As
my
findings
indicate
that
most
Singaporean
youths
are
aware
of
Facebook’s
privacy
safeguards,
perhaps
the
next
level
that
parents
and
educators
can
engage
with
them
during
online
safety
discussions
is
to
share
how
youths
should
be
discriminating
when
it
comes
to
adding
friends
on
Facebook;
especially
since
some
youths
disclose
personal
information
such
as
mobile
numbers
in
their
profiles.
Youths
need
learn
to
be
either
more
discriminating
when
it
comes
to
approving
friends
on
Facebook,
or
to
begin
segmenting
their
friends
into
lists
and
assigning
different
levels
of
access
to
different
lists
of
friends
in
Facebook.
The
current
light
touch
approach
by
parents
and
educators
when
it
comes
to
youths’
personal
information
disclosure
in
Facebook
seems
to
suffice
for
now.
However,
policymakers
should
take
note
of
the
infrequent
but
significant
cases
when
a
dual
or
ambivalent
perspective
is
recorded,
such
as
youths
not
trusting
Facebook
completely
but
persist
in
revealing
their
personal
information
in
Facebook.
This
suggests
that
youths
also
struggle
to
reconcile
the
concerns
raised
in
mainstream
media
discourses
accessible
to
themselves
as
well
as
their
143
parents,
caregivers
and
teachers,
with
their
own
and
their
friends’
experiences
with
the
Internet.
Therefore,
even
though
Singaporean
youths
are
privacy-‐oriented,
there
has
to
be
reinforcement
by
various
parties
–
parents,
educators,
and
policymakers,
even
peers,
to
ensure
a
safe
and
conducive
SNS
environment.
8.4
Suggestions
for
future
research
The
recent
media
coverage
on
the
lapses
in
Facebook’s
privacy
settings
has
shown
how
the
issue
of
privacy
in
SNS
is
gaining
salience.
As
Facebook’s
popularity
grows
and
users
disclose
their
personal
information
on
the
SNS,
the
impact
of
media
discourse
on
Facebook
users’
level
of
awareness
for
personal
information
disclosure
can
be
an
area
of
academic
interest.
For
the
field
of
online
privacy
and
personal
information
disclosure,
future
research
can
go
beyond
examining
technical
privacy
safeguards,
after
ascertaining
that
the
technical
privacy
safeguards
have
been
utilized
to
look
at
the
influence
of
social
capital
on
privacy.
Currently,
the
trend
in
Facebook
is
social
gaming,
where
users
are
adding
strangers
in
Facebook
to
enlist
their
aid
in
completing
tasks
to
progress
in
the
games.
These
popular
activities
in
Facebook
and
how
they
affect
the
level
and
nature
of
personal
information
disclosure
in
SNS
demonstrate
how
privacy
and
social
capital
are
related.
144
In
conclusion,
even
as
SNS
become
a
mainstay
in
the
lives
of
digital
natives,
it
is
still
evolving
as
a
phenomenon.
This
creates
challenges
for
communication
scholars
who
have
to
keep
abreast
of
the
latest
developments.
At
the
same
time,
the
plethora
of
information
available
about
SNS
encourages
discussion
and
is
conducive
to
the
creation
of
valuable
insights,
as
well
as
vibrant
and
engaging
dialogues
between
the
industry,
users
and
academics.
(29
330words)
145
Bibliography
Abrahamson,
M.
(2003).
Social
research
methods.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
Abril,
P.S.
(2007).
A
(My)
Space
of
one's
own:
On
privacy
and
online
social
networks.
Northwestern
School
of
Law
Journal
of
Technology
and
Intellectual
Property,
73.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v6/n1/4
Agger,
Ben.
2004.
The
Virtual
Self:
A
contemporary
Sociology.
New
York:Blackwell
Publishers.
Ahn,
Y.,
Han,
S.,
Kwak,
H.,
Moon,
S.,
&
Jeong,
H.
(2007).
Analysis
of
topological
characteristics
of
huge
online
social
networking
services.
In
Proceedings
of
the
16th
international
Conference
on
World
Wide
Web
(Banff,
Alberta,
Canada,
May
08
-
12,
2007).
WWW
'07.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
835-‐844.
Altman,
I.
(1975).
The
environment
and
social
behavior.
Monterey,
CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Altman,
I.,
&
Taylor,
D.,
(1973).
Social
Penetration:
The
Development
of
Interpersonal
Relationships.
NewYork:
Holt,
Rinehart
and
Winston.
Altman,
C.,
Barnes,
R.,
&
Leudar,
I.
(2005).
Self-‐disclosure
as
a
situated
interactional
practice.
British
journal
of
Social
Psychology,
44,
181-‐200.
Anderson,
B.
(1983).
Imagined
Communities:
Reflections
on
the
Origin
and
Spread
of
Nationalism.
Verso,
London
and
New
York.
Anderson,
T
L.,
&
Emmers-‐Sommer,
T.
M.
(2006).
Predictors
of
romantic
satisfaction
in
online
romantic
relationships.
Communication
Studies,
57,
153-‐172.
Andrejevic,
M.
(2005).
The
work
of
watching
one
another:
lateral
surveillance,
risk,
governance.
Surveillance
and
Society,
2(4)-‐479-‐497.
Arjan,
R.,
Pfeil,
U.,
&
Zaphiris,
P..
(2008).
Age
differences
in
online
social
networking.
CHI
2008,
April
5
–
April
10,
2008,
Florence,
Italy,
ACM.
Babbie,
E.
(2001).
The
practice
of
social
research.
(9th
ed.).
Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth.
Babbie,
E.
(2002).
The
basics
of
social
research.
(2nd
ed.).
Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth.
Backstrom,
L.,
Huttenlocher,
D.,
Kleinberg,
J.,
&
Lan,
X.
(2006).
Group
formation
in
large
social
networks:
membership,
growth,
and
evolution.
In
Proceedings
of
the
12th
ACM
SIGKDD
international
Conference
on
Knowledge
Discovery
and
Data
Mining
(Philadelphia,
PA,
USA,
August
20
-
23,
2006).
KDD
'06.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
44-‐54.
Bargh,
J.
A.,
McKenna,
K.Y.A.,
&
Fitzsimons,
G.M.
(2002).
Can
you
see
the
real
me?
Activation
and
expression
of
the
true
self
on
the
Internet.
Journal
of
Social
Issues,
58,
33-‐48.
146
Barnes,
S.
B.
(2006).
A
privacy
paradox:
Social
networking
in
the
United
States.
First
Monday,
(11)9.
Barton,
Z.
(2006).
Facebook
goes
corporate,
CNET.
Baym,
N.
(2002).
Interpersonal
life
online.
In
L.
Lievrouw
&
S.
Livingstone
(Eds.),
The
handbook
of
new
media
(pp.
62-‐76).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Beer,
D.
(2008).
Making
friends
with
Jarvis
Cocker:
music
culture
in
the
context
of
Web
2.0.
Cultural
Sociology,
2,
222-‐241.
Ben-‐Ze’ev,
A.
(2003).
Privacy,
emotional
closeness
and
openness
in
cyberspace.
Computers
in
Human
Behavior,
19,
451-‐467.
Berelson,
B.
(1952).
Content
analysis
in
communications
research.
Glencoe,
IL:
Free
Press.
Berendt,
B.,
Gunther,
O.,
&
Spiekermann,
S.
(2005).
Privacy
in
e-‐commerce:
Stated
preferences
vs.
actual
behavior.
Communications
of
the
ACM,
48(4),
101-‐106.
Berg,
B.
L.
(2001).
Qualitative
research
methods
for
the
social
sciences.
Boston:
Allyn
and
Bacon.
Berg,
B.L.
(2004)
Qualitative
research
methods
for
the
social
sciences.
Boston:
Pearson.
Berson,
M.J.
&
Berson,
I.R.
(2003).
Lessons
learned
about
schools
and
their
responsibility
to
foster
safety
online.
Journal
of
School
Violence,
2(1),
105-‐117.
Berson,
I.
R.,
&
Berson,
M.J.
(2005).
Challenging
online
behaviors
of
youths:
Findings
from
a
comparative
analysis
of
young
people
in
the
United
States
and
New
Zealand.
Social
Science
Computer
Review,
23(1),
29-‐38.
boyd,
d.
(2004)
Friendster
and
Publicly
Articulated
Social
Networks.
Presented
during
Conference
on
Human
Factors
and
Computing
Systems
(CHI
2004).
Vienna:
ACM.
boyd,
d
(2006).Friends,
Friendsters,
and
MySpace
top
8:
writing
community
into
being
on
social
network
sites.
First
Monday.
11(12).
boyd,
d.
&
Heer,
J.
(2006).
Profiles
as
Conversation:
Networked
Identity
Performance
on
Friendster.
In
Proceedings
of
the
Hawai'i
International
Conference
on
System
Sciences
(HICSS-39),
Persistent
Conversation
Track.
Kauai,
HI:
IEEE
Computer
Society.
boyd,
d.
m.,
&
Ellison,
N.
B.
(2007).
Social
network
sites:
Definition,
History,
and
Scholarship.
Journal
of
Computer
Mediated
Communication,
13(1),
210-‐230.
boyd,
d.
(2008).
Facebook’s
privacy
trainwreck:
Exposure,
invasion
and
social
convergence.
Convergence
14,
1.
147
boyd,
d.
(2008).
Why
youth
(heart)
social
network
sites:
The
role
of
networked
publics
in
teenage
social
life.
In
Buckingham,
D.
(Ed),
Youth,
Identity,
and
Digital
Media.
(pp.
119-‐142).
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press.
Booth,
P.
(2008).
Rereading
Fandom:
MySpace
Character
Personas
and
Narrative
Identification.
Critical
Studies
in
Media
Communication,
25:5,
514-‐536.
Bourdieu,
P.
(1993).
Sociology
in
Question.
London
:
Sage.
Bradford.
(2008).
MySpace
or
yours?
:
Advertising
and
social
networks.
Strategic
Direction.
24(8),
15.
Bryne,
D.N..
(2008).
The
Future
of
(the)
’Race’:
Identity,
Discourse,
and
the
Rise
of
Computer-‐mediated
Public
Spheres.
Learning
Race
and
Ethnicity:
Youth
and
Digital
Media.
Edited
by
Anna
Everett.
The
John
D.
and
Catherine
T.
MacArthur
Foundation
Series
on
Digital
Media
and
Learning.
Cambridge,
MA:
The
MIT
Press,
2008.
15–38.
Buchanan,
T.,
Paine,
C.,
Joinson,
A.,
&
Reips,
U.-‐D.
(2007).
Development
of
measures
of
online
privacy
concern
and
protection
for
use
on
the
Internet.
Journal
of
the
American
Society
for
Information
Science
and
Technology,
58(2),
157–165.
Buckingham,
D.
(2002).
The
electronic
generation?
Children
and
new
media.
In
L.
Lievrouw
&
S.
Livingstone
(Eds.),
The
Handbook
of
New
Media:
Social
shaping
and
consequences
of
ICTs
(pp.
77-‐89).
London:
Sage.
Buckingham,
D.
(2005).
Children
and
new
media.
In
L.
Lieverow
&
S.
Livingstone
(Eds)
Handbook
of
New
Media.
London:
Sage.
Buckingham,
D.
(Ed.).
(2008).
Youth,
Identity
and
Digital
Media.
Edited
by
The
John
D.
and
Catherine
T.
MacArthur
Foundation
series
on
Digital
Media
and
Learning.
Cambrige,
MA.
The
MIT
Press,
2008.
Buckingham,
D.,
&
Sefton-‐Green,
J.
(1994).
Cultural
studies
goes
to
school.
London:
Taylor
&
Francis.
Buckingham,
D.,
&
Willett,
R..
(Eds).
(2006).
Digital
Generations:
children,
young
people
and
new
media.
Mahwah,
N.J.:Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates,
Publishers.
Buffardi,
L.E.,
Campbell,
W.K.
(2008).
Narcissism
and
Social
Networking
Web
Sites.
Pers
Soc
Psychology
Bulletin,
34,
1303-‐1314.
Bulmer
M.
(Ed.)
(1982)
Social
Research
Ethics.
Macmillan,
London.
Burgoon,
J.
K.,
Newton,
D.
A.,
Walther,
J.
B.,
&
Baesler,
E.
J.
(1989).
Nonverbal
expectancy
violations
and
conversational
involvement.
Journal
of
Nonverbal
Behavior,
13,
97-‐
119.
Cain,
J.
(2007).
Online
social
networking
issues
within
academia
and
pharmacy
education.
American
Journal
of
Pharmaceutical
Education
2008,
72
(1),
Article
10.
148
Cameron,
K.
A.,
Salazar,
L.F.,
Bernhardt,
J.M.,
Burgess-‐Whitman,
N.,
Wingood,
G.M.,
&
DiClemente,
R.
J.
(2005).
Adolescents’
experience
with
sex
on
the
web:
results
from
online
focus
groups.
Journal
of
Adolescence,
535-‐540.
Campbell,
D.T.
(1956),
Leadership
and
its
effects
upon
the
group.
Ohio
State
University,
Columbus.
Campbell,
D.T.
and
Fiske,
D.
(1959).
Convergent
and
discriminant
validation
by
the
multitrait-‐multimethod
matrix.
Psychological
Bulletin,
56,
81-‐104.
Carney,
T.
F.
(1972).
Content
analysis.
Winnipeg:
University
of
Manitoba
Press.
Carroll,
J.
M.,
&
Rosson,
M.
B.
(2003).
A
trajectory
for
community
networks.
The
Information
Society,
19,
381
-‐393.
Carter,
D.
(2005).
Living
in
virtual
communities.
Irviormatian,
Communication,
&
Society,
8,
148-‐167.
Cassidy,
J.
(2006).
Me
media:
How
hanging
out
on
the
Internet
became
big
business.
New
Yorker
(15
May).
Retrieved
from:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/05/15/060515fa_fact_cassidy
Chapman
C.N.,
&
LaHav,
M..
(2008).
International
ethnographic
observation
of
social
networking
sites.
CHI
2008,
April
5–10,
2008,
Florence,
Italy,
ACM.
Cheney,
S.
(January
2008).
Social
networking
sites
may
impact
how
traditional
businesses
work.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/323756/1
/.html
Choi,
J.H.
(2006).
Living
in
Cyworld:
contextualizing
cy-‐ties
in
South
Korea.
Use
of
Blogs.
Pp
173-‐186.
Christ,
R.E,
Berges,
J.S,
Trevino,
S.C.
(2007).
Social
Networking
Sites:
to
monitor
or
not
to
monitor
users
and
their
content?
Intellectual
Property
&
Technology
Law
Journal,
19(7),
13-‐17.
Retrieved
March
21,
2009,
from
ABI/INFORM
Global
database.
Christofides,
E.,
Muise,
A.,
&
Desmarais,
S.
(2009).
Information
control
on
Facebook:
Are
they
two
sides
of
the
same
coin
or
two
different
process?
CyberPsychology
&
Behavior,
12(3):
341-‐345.
Christian,
L.M.,
Dillman,
D.A.,
&
Smyth,
J.D.
(Forthcoming).
The
effects
of
mode
and
format
on
answers
to
scalar
questions
in
telephone
and
web
surveys.
Advances
in
telephone
survey
methodology.
New
York:
Wiley-‐Interscience.
Chu,
M.,
&
Meulemans,
Y.
N.
(2008).
The
problems
and
potential
of
MySpace
and
Facebook
usage
in
academic
libraries,
Internet
Reference
Services
Quarterly,
13(1),
69-‐85.
149
Chun,
H.,
Kwak,
H.,
Eom,
Y.,
Ahn,
Y.,
Moon,
S.,
&
Jeong,
H.
(2008).
Comparison
of
online
social
relations
in
volume
vs
interaction:
a
case
study
of
cyworld.
In
Proceedings
of
the
8th
ACM
SIGCOMM
Conference
on
internet
Measurement
(Vouliagmeni,
Greece,
October
20
-
22,
2008).
IMC
'08.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
57-‐70.
Couper,
M.P.,
Traugott,
M.W.,
&
Lamias,
M.J.
(2001).
Web
design
survey
and
administration.
Public
Opinion
Quarterly,
65,
230-‐254.
Creswell,
J.W.
(2003).
Research
design:
Qualitative,
quantitative,
and
mixed
methods
approaches.
2nd
edition,
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:Sage.
Crocker,
J.,
Major,
B.,
&
Steele,
C.
(1998).
Social
Stigma.
In
D.
T.
Gilbert,
S.T
Fiske,
and
G.
Lindzey
(Eds)
The
handbook
of
social
psychology
(4th
Ed.,
Vol
2,
pp
504-‐553).
Boston:
McGraw-‐Hill.
Das,
G.,
Koudas,
N.,
Papagelis,
M.,
&
Puttaswamy,
S.
(2008).
Efficient
sampling
of
information
in
social
networks.
In
Proceeding
of
the
2008
ACM
Workshop
on
Search
in
Social
Media
(Napa
Valley,
California,
USA,
October
30
-
30,
2008).
SSM
'08.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
67-‐74.
David,
M.,
&
Sutton,
C.D.
(2004)
Social
research:
the
basics.
London:
Sage.
Davidson,
J.,
&
Matellozzo,
E.
(2008).
Protecting
vulnerable
youth
people
in
cyberspace
from
sexual
abuse:
raising
awareness
and
responding
globally.
Police
Practice
and
Research,
9(4),
277-‐289.
De
Souza,
Z.,
&
Dick,
G.
N..
(2008).
Information
disclosure
on
MySpace
-‐
the
what,
the
why
and
the
Implications.
Pastoral
Care
in
Education,
26(3),143
—
157.
De
Souza,
Z,
&
Dick,
G,
N.
(2009).
Disclosure
of
information
by
children
in
social
networking
–
Not
just
a
case
of
“you
show
me
yours
and
I’ll
show
you
mine”.
International
Journal
of
Information
Management,
(29)4:255-‐261.
Denzin,
N.
(1971)
The
research
act
in
sociology.
London:
Butterworth.
DiMicco,
J.M
&
Millen,
D.R.
(2007).
Identity
management:
multiple
presentations
of
self
in
Facebook.
Conference
on
Supporting
Group
Work.,
ACM
Press,
383-‐386.
Donath,
J.,
&
boyd,
d.
(2004).
Public
displays
of
connection.
BT
Technology
Journal,
2:4,
71-‐82.
Downes,
S.
(2005).
Semantic
networks
and
social
networks.
The
Learning
Organization,
12(5):411-‐417.
Dwyer,
C.,
Hiltz,
S.R.,
&
Passerini,
K.
(2007).
Trust
and
privacy
concern
within
social
networking
sites:
A
comparison
of
Facebook
and
MySpace.
Proceedings
of
AMCIS
2007.
150
Edmunds,
J.
&
Turner,
B.S.
2002.
Generations,
Culture
and
Society.
Buckingham
and
Philadelphia:
Open
University
Press.
Ellison,
N.,
Steinfield,
C.
&
Lample,
C.
(2006).
The
benefits
of
Facebook
friends.
Social
capital
and
college
students’
use
of
online
social
network
sits.
Journal
of
Computer
Mediated
Communication,
12
(4).
Article
1.
Ellison,
N.,
Heino,
R.,
&
Gibbs,
J.
(2006).
Managing
impressions
online:
Self-‐presentation
processes
in
the
online
dating
environment.
Journal
of
Computer-Mediated
Communication,
11(2).
Ellison,
N.,
Steinfield,
C.,
&
Lampe,
C.
(2006).
Spatially
bounded
online
social
networks
and
social
capital:
The
role
of
Facebook.
Presented
at
International
Communication
Association,
June
2006.
Enders,
A.,
Hungenberg,
H.,
Denker,
H-‐P.,
Mauch,
S.
(2008).
The
long
tail
of
social
networking.
Revenue
models
of
social
networking
sites.
European
Management
Journal.
26(3),
199.
Evans,
D.C.,
Gosling,
S.D.,
&
Carroll,
A..
(2008).
What
elements
of
an
online
social
networking
profile
predict
target-‐rater
agreement
in
personality
impressions?
ICWSM’08,
March
31
-
April
2,
2008,
Seattle,
Washington,
USA.
Esterberg,
K.G.
(2002).
Qualitative
methods
in
social
science
research.
Boston:
McGraw
Hill.
Felt,
A.,
&
Evans,
D.
(2008).
Privacy
protection
for
social
networking
APIs.
W2SP,
May
2008.
Fielding,
N
&
Fielding,
J.
(1986)
Linking
Data:
the
articulation
of
qualitative
and
quantitative
methods
in
social
research.
London
and
Beverly
Hills:
Sage
.
Finhelhor,
D.,
Mitchell,
K.J.,
&
Wolak,
J.
(2000).
Online
victimization:
A
report
on
Nation’s
youth.
NCJRS.
Fleming,
M.J.,
Greentree,
S.,
Cocotti-‐Muller.,
Elias,
K.
A.,
&
Morrison,
S.
(2006).
Safety
in
cyberspace:
Adolescents’
safety
and
exposure
online.
Youth
and
Society,
38(2),
135-‐154.
Fogel,
J.,
&
Nehmad,
E.
(2009).
Internet
social
network
communities:
Risk
taking,
trust,
and
privacy
concerns.
Computers
in
Human
Behavior,
25,
153-‐160.
Fono,
D.,
&
Raynes-‐Goldie,
K.
(2006).
Hyperfriends
and
Beyond:
Friendship
and
Social
Norms
on
LiveJournal.”(2006).
M.
Consalvo
&
C.
Haythornthwaite
(Eds.),
Internet
Research
Annual
Volume
4:
Selected
Papers
from
the
Association
of
Internet
Researchers
Conference.
New
York:
Peter
Lang.
Forno,
D.,
&
Raynes-‐Goldie,
K.
(2006).
Hyperfriends
and
beyond:
Friendship
and
social
norms
on
Livejournal.
Internet
Research
Annual
Volume
4.
New
York:
Peter
Lang.
151
Freeman,
R.
E.
(2000).
Children,
teens,
and
sex
on
the
Internet.
Sexual
Addiction
and
Compulsivity,
7(1),
75-‐90.
Gandy,
O.H.
(1993).
The
panoptic
sort:
A
political
economy
of
personal
information.
Boulder,
Colo.:
Westview.
Garton,
L.,
Haythornwaite.
C.,
&
Wellman,
B.
(1997).
Studying
online
social
networks.
Journal
of
Computer
Mediated
Communication,
(3)1.
Genova,
G.L.
(2009).
No
place
to
play:
current
employee
privacy
rights
in
social
networking
sites.
Business
Communication
Quarterly
2009;
72:97-‐103.
Gerstein,
S.
(1984).
Intimacy
and
privacy.
In
Schoeman,
F.
D.
(Eds.)
Philosophical
Dimensions
of
Privacy:
An
Anthology.
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Geyer,
W.,
Dugan,
C.,
Millen,
D.R.,
Muller,
M.,
&
Freyne,
J..
(October
2008).
Recommending
topics
for
self
descriptions
in
online
user
profiles.
RecSys’08,
October
23–25,
2008,
Lausanne,
Switzerland.
Gjoka,
M.,
Sirivianos,
M.,
Markopoulou,
A.,
&
Yang,
X.
(2008).
Poking
Facebook:
characterization
of
osn
applications.
In
Proceedings
of
the
First
Workshop
on
online
Social
Networks
(Seattle,
WA,
USA,
August
18
-
18,
2008).
WOSP
'08.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
31-‐36.
Golder,
S.,
Wilkinson,
D.,
&
Huberman,
B.
A.
(2007).
Rhythms
of
Social
Interaction:
Messa
ging
within
a
Massive
Online
Network.
Paper
presented
at
the
3rd
International
Co
nference
on
Communities
and
Technologies
(CT2007).
East
Lansing,MI.
Godwin,
P.
(2007).
Information
literacy
meets
Web
2.0:
How
the
new
tools
affect
our
own
training
and
our
teaching.
New
Review
of
Information
Networking,
13(2),
101-‐112.
Goffman,
E.
(1959).
The
Presentation
of
Self
in
Everyday
Life.
New
York:
Doubleday.
Gosling,
S.D.,
Gaddis,
S.,
&
Vazire,
S..
(2007).
Personality
impressions
based
on
Facebook
profiles.
ICWSM’2007,
Boulder,
Colorado,
USA.
Govani,
T.,
&
Pashley,
H.
(2006).
Student
awareness
of
the
privacy
implications
when
using
Facebook.
Unpublished
manuscript.
Granovetter,
M.
(1973).
The
strength
of
weak
ties.
American
Journal
of
Sociology
78(6):
1360-‐80.
Granovetter,
M.
(1983).
The
strength
of
weak
ties:
A
network
theory
revisited.
Sociological
Theory,
1:201–233.
Gross,
R.
&
Acquisti,
A.
(
November
2005).
Information
revelation
and
privacy
in
online
social
networks.
Paper
presented
at
the
WPES’05,
Alexandria,
Virginia,
USA.
152
Gueorguieva,
V.
(2008).
Voters,
MySpace,
and
YouTube:
the
impact
of
alternative
communication
channels
on
the
2006
election
cycle
and
beyond.
Social
Science
Computer
Review,
26,
288-‐300.
Gwee,
S.
(2008,
March
12).
Caught
in
a
web
of
menace.
The
Straits
Times.
Retrieved
from:
http://digital.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20080312-‐
54069.html
Hammersley,
M.
(1996).
The
relationship
between
qualitative
and
quantitative
research:
Paradigm
loyalty
versus
methodological
eclecticism.
In
J.T.E.
Richardson
(ed.),
Handbook
of
Research
in
Psychology
and
the
Social
Sciences.
Leicester
UK:
BPS
Books.
Hancock,
J.
T.,
Toma,
C.
L.,
&
Fenner,
K.
(2008).
I
know
something
you
don't:
the
use
of
asymmetric
personal
information
for
interpersonal
advantage.
In
Proceedings
of
the
ACM
2008
Conference
on
Computer
Supported
Cooperative
Work
(San
Diego,
CA,
USA,
November
08
-
12,
2008).
CSCW
'08.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
413-‐416.
Hargittai,
E.
(2007).
Whose
space?
Differences
among
users
and
non-‐users
of
social
network
sites.
Journal
of
Computer-Mediated
Communication,
13(1).
Article
14.
Harris,
A.
(2008).
Young
women,
late
modern
politics,
and
the
participatory
possibilities
of
online
cultures.
Journal
of
Youth
Studies,
11(5):481-‐495.
Haythornthwaite,
C.
(2005).
Social
networks
and
Internet
connectivity
effects.
Information,
Communication
and
Society,
8
(2),
125-‐147.
Herring,
S.
(2008).
Questioning
the
Generational
Divide:
Technological
Exoticism
and
Adult
Constructions
of
Online
Youth
Identity.
In
Buckingham,
David
(Eds.)
Youth,
Identity,
and
Digital
Media.
Cambridge:
MIT
Press.
Hessler,
R.M.,
Downing,
J.,
Beltz,
C.,
Pelliccio,
A.,
Powell,
M.
&
Hale,
W.
(2003).
Qualitative
research
on
adolescent
risk
using
email:
a
methodological
assessment.
Qualitative
Sociology,
26(1),
111-‐124.
Hewitt,
A.,
&
Forte,
A..
(2006).
Crossing
boundaries:
Identity
management
and
student/faculty
relationships
on
the
Facebook.
CSCW'06,
November
4-8,
2006,
Banff,
Alberta,
Canada.
Hewson,
C.M.,
Yule,
P.,
Laurent,
D.,
&
Vogel,
C.M.
(2003)
Internet
research
methods:
A
practical
guide
for
the
social
and
behavorial
sciences.
London:
Sage.
Hewson,
C.
(2006).
Mixed
methods
research.
The
Sage
dictionary
of
social
research
methods.
London:
Sage.
Hewson,
C.
(2007).
Gathering
data
on
the
Internet:
Qualitative
approaches
and
possibilities
for
mixed
methods
research.
In
A.
Joinson,
K.
McKenna,
U.
Reips
&
T.
Postmes
(Ed.),
Oxford
Handbook
of
Internet
Psychology.
Oxford
University
Press.
153
Hinduja,
S.,
&
Patchin,
J.W.
(2008).
Personal
information
of
adolescents
on
the
Internet:
A
quantitative
content
analysis
of
MySpace.
Journal
for
Adolescence,
31,
125-‐146.
Hodge,
M.J.
(2007).
The
Fourth
amendment
and
privacy
issues
on
the
“new”
internet:
Facebook.com
and
MySpace.com.
Southern
Illinois
University
Law
Journal.
31:95-‐
124.
Holloway,
S.L.,
&
Valentine,
G.
(2003).
Cyberkids:
children
in
the
information
age.
London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Holter,
I.M.,
&
Schwartz
-‐
Barcott,D.
(1993).
Action
Research:
What
is
it?
How
has
it
been
used
and
how
can
it
be
used
in
nursing?
Journal
of
Advanced
Nursing
1993:128;
298-‐304.
Hsu,
W.H.,
Lancaster,
J.,
Paradesi,
M.S.R.,
&
Weninger,
T.
(2007).
Structural
link
analysis
from
user
profiles
and
friends
networks:
A
feature
construction
approach.
ICWSM'2007
Boulder,
Colorado,
USA.
Huffaker,
D.A.,
&
Calvert,
S.L.
(2005).
Gender,
identity,
and
language
use
in
teenage
blogs.
Journal
of
Computer-mediated
Communication,
10(2).
Humphreys,
L.
(2007).
Mobile
social
networks
and
social
practice:
A
case
study
of
Dodgeball.
Journal
of
Computer-Mediated
Communication,
13(1).
Article
17.
Immorlica,
N.,
Kleinberg,
J.,
Mahdian,
M.,
&
Wexler,
T.
(2007).
The
role
of
compatibility
in
the
diffusion
of
technologies
through
social
networks.
In
Proceedings
of
the
8th
ACM
Conference
on
Electronic
Commerce
(San
Diego,
California,
USA,
June
11
-
15,
2007).
EC
'07.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
75-‐83.
Jenkins,
H.
(1998).
Introduction:
Childhood
innocence
and
other
modern
myths.
In
The
children’s
cultural
reader,
Henry
Jenkins
(Eds).
New
York:
New
York
University
Press.
Jensen,
C.,
Potts,
C.,
&
Jensen,
C.
(2005).
Privacy
practices
of
Internet
users:
Self-‐reports
versus
observed
behavior.
International
Journal
of
Human-Computer
Studies,
63,
203-‐227.
Jick,
T.D.
(1983).
Mixing
qualitative
and
quantitative
methods:
Triangulation
in
action.
In
J.
Van
Maanen
(Ed.),
Qualitative
methodology
(pp.
135-‐148).
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage.
Joinson,
A.
N.,
Paine,
C.
B.,
Buchanan,
T.,
&
Rieps,
U-‐D.
(2006).
Privacy
and
self-‐disclosure
online.
CHI
2006.
Joinson,
A.
N.,
Paine,
C.
B.,
Buchanan,
T.,
&
Rieps,
U-‐D.
(2007).
Measuring
Internet
privacy
attitudes
and
behaviors:
A
multi-dimensional
approach.
Joinson,
A.
N,
&
Paine,
C.B.
(2007).
Self-‐disclosure,
privacy
and
the
Internet.
In
A.
Joinson,
K.
McKenna,
U.
Reips
&
T.
Postmes
(Ed.),
Oxford
Handbook
of
Internet
Psychology.
Oxford
University
Press.
154
Joinson,
A.N.
(2008)
Looking
at,
looking
up
or
keeping
up
with
people?:
motives
of
use
of
Facebook.
In
Conference
on
Human
Factors
in
Computing
Systems
(CHI),
(Florence,
Italy,
2008),
ACM
Press,
1027-‐1036.
Jones,
S.,
Millermaier,
S.,
Goya-‐Martinez,
M.,
&
Schuler,
J..
(2008).
Whose
space
is
MySpace
?
A
content
analysis
of
MySpace
profiles.
First
Monday,
13(9).
Kamaraguru,
P.,
&
Cranor,
L.
F.
(2005).
Privacy
indexes:
A
survey
of
Westin’s
studies.
Institute
for
Software
Research
International,
Carnegie
Mellon
University,
Technical
Report,
CMU–ISRI–5–138.
Karlsson,
A-‐M.
(1998).
Selves,
frames
and
functions
of
two
Swedish
teenagers’
personal
pages.
Presented
at
6th
International
pragmatics
conference.
Kavanaugh,
A.,
Reese,
D.,
&
Rosson,
M.
(2005).
Weak
ties
in
networked
communities.
Information
Society,
21(2).
119-‐131.
Kemmis,
S.,
&
McTaggert,
R.,
(1990).
The
Action
Research
Planner.
Geelong:
Deakin
University
Press.
King,
D.L,
&
Brown,
S.W.
(2009).
Emerging
Trends,
2.0,
and
Libraries.
The
Serials
Librarian,
56(1),32-‐
43.
Klopfer,
P.H.,
&
Rubenstein,
D.
I.
(1977).
The
concept
of
privacy
and
its
biological
basis.
Journal
of
Social
Issues.
33(3),
52-‐65.
Knafl,
K.A.,
&
Breitmayer,
B.J.
(1989).
Triangulation
in
qualitative
research:
Issues
of
conception,
clarity,
and
purpose.
In
J.M.
Morse
(Ed.),
Qualitative
nursing
research:
A
contemporary
dialogue.
Rockville,
MD:
Aspen.
Kowalski,
R.M.,
Limber,
S.P.,
&
Agatston,
P.W.
(2008).
Cyber
Bullying.
Wiley-‐Blackwell,
Malden,
MA.
Kraut,
R.
E.,
Kiesler,
S.,
Boneva,
B.,
Cummings,
J.,
Helgson,
V.,
&
Crawford,
A.
(2002).
Internet
paradox
revisted.
Journal
of
Social
Issues,
58(1),
49-‐74.
Lampe,
C,
Ellison,
N.B.,
&
Steinfeld,
C.
(2006)
A
Face(book)
in
the
crowd:
Social
searching
vs.
social
browsing.
ACM
Special
interest
group
on
Computer-Supported
Cooperative
Work,
(Banaff,
Canada,
2006).
ACM
Press.
Lampe,
C,
Ellison,
N.B.,
&
Steinfeld,
C.
(2007).
Profile
elements
as
signals
in
an
online
social
network.
ACM
conference
on
Human
factors
in
computing
systems
(CHI),
ACM
Press.
Lampe,
C,
Ellison,
N.B.,
&
Steinfeld,
C.
(2008)
Changes
in
use
and
perception
of
Facebook.
CSCW’08,
November
2008.
721-‐730.
Latham,
R.P.,
Butzer,
C.C,
&
Brown,
J.T.
(2008).
Legal
Implications
of
User-‐Generated
Content:
YouTube,
MySpace,
Facebook.
Intellectual
Property
&
Technology
Law
155
Journal,
20(5),
1-‐0_1.
Retrieved
March
21,
2009,
from
ABI/INFORM
Global
database.
Lee,
A.,
&
Bruckman,
A..
(2007).
Judging
you
by
the
company
you
keep:
dating
on
social
networking
sites.
GROUP'07,
November
4-7,
2007,
Sanibel
Island,
Florida,
USA.
Leedy,
P.D.
(2001).
Practical
research:
Planning
and
design
(7th
ed.).
New
York:
Macmillan.
Lenhart.
A.,
&
Madden,
M.
(2007).
Teens,
privacy,
&
online
social
networks.
Pew
Internet
and
American
Life
Project
report.
Levin,
A.,
&
Abril,
P.
S.
(2009).
Two
notions
of
privacy
online.
Vanderbilt
Journal
of
Entertainment
and
Technology
Law,
11,
1001-‐1051.
Retrieved
from
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/journal-‐entertainment-‐technology-‐
law/archive/download.aspx?id=4167
Liau,
A.
K.,
Khoo,
A.,
&
Ang,
P.
H.
(2008).
Parental
awareness
and
monitoring
adolescents’
internet
use.
Current
Psychology,
27(4),
217-233.
Livingstone,
S.
(2003).
Children’s
use
of
the
Internet:
Reflections
on
the
emerging
research
agenda.
New
Media
and
Society,
5(2),
147-‐166.
Livingstone,
S.
(2008).
Taking
risky
opportunities
in
youthful
content
creation:
teenagers’
use
of
social
networking
sites
for
intimacy,
privacy
and
self-‐expression.
New
Media
and
Society,
10
(3),
393-‐411.
Livingstone,
S.,
&
Bovill,
M.
(2001).
Families
and
the
Internet:
An
observational
study
of
children
and
young
people’s
internet
use.
Retrieved
February
16,
2010,
from
London
School
of
Economics
Web
site:http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/btreport_familiesinternet.
pdf
Livingstone,
S.
&
Bober,
M.
(2006).
Regulating
the
internet
at
home:
contrasting
the
perspectives
of
children
and
parents.
In
Buckingham,
D.
and
Willett,
R.
(Ed.).
Digital
generations:
children,
young
people
and
new
media.
Mahwah,
N.J.
:
Lawrence
Erlbaum,
2006,
pp.
93-‐113.
Long,
A.
(2010).
Social
media
overtakes
search
engines.
Hitwise
Asia.
Retrived
from:
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/alan-‐long/2010/01/post.html
Madhavan,
N.
(2007,
July
6).
India
gets
more
Net
Cool.
Hindustan
Times.
Retrieved
July
30,
2009
from
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=f2565bb8-‐663e-‐
48c1-‐94ee-‐d99567577bdd
Magid,
L.
(October,
2008).
Technology
forges
relationships
for
life.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/28/scitech/pcanswer/main455223
8.shtml
156
Malesky
Jr,
A.
L.
(2007).
Predatory
online
behavior:
Modus
operandi
or
convicted
sexual
offenders
in
identifying
potential
victims
and
contacting
minors
over
the
Internet.
Journal
of
Child
Sexual
Abuse,
16(2),
23-‐32.
Margulis,
S.
T.
(1979).
Privacy
as
information
management:
A
social
psychological
and
environmental
framework.
Washington
DC:
US
Department
of
Commerce,
National
Bureau
of
Standards.
Marwick,
A.
(2005).
'I'm
a
Lot
More
Interesting
than
a
Friendster
Profile':
Identity
Presentation,
Authenticity
and
Power
in
Social
Networking
Services.
Paper
presented
at
AOIR
6.0,
Chicago,
IL.
McCandlish,
S.
(2002).
EFF’s
top
12
ways
to
protect
your
online
privacy.
Retrieved
December
10,
2010,
from
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation
website:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/
eff_privacy_top_12.html
Mann,
C.,
&
Stewart,
F.
(2000).
Internet
communication
and
qualitative
research:
A
handbook
for
researching
online.
London:Sage.
McCutcheon,
G.,
&
Jurg,
B.
(1990).
Alternative
Perspectives
on
Action
Research.
Theory
into
Practice.
24(3).
McTaggert,
R.,
(1992).
Action
Research:
Issues
in
Theory
and
Practice
Keynote
address
to
the
Methodological
Issues
in
Qualitative
Health
Research
Conference,
Friday
November
27th,
1992,
Geelong:
Deakin
University.
Metzger,
M.
J.
(2004)
Privacy,
Trust,
and
Disclosure:
Exploring
Barriers
to
Electronic
Commerce.
Journal
of
Computer-Mediated
Communication
(9)
4.
Milgram,
S.
(1967).
The
small
world
problem.
Psychology
Today,
6:62–67.
Milgram.
S.
(1977).
The
familiar
stranger:
An
aspect
of
urban
anonymity.
Milgram,
S.,
Sabini,
J.,
and
Silver,
M.
(Eds.)
The
Individual
in
a
Social
World:
Essays
and
Experiments.
Addison-‐Wesley,
Reading,
MA.
Mislove,
A.,
Marcon,
M.,
Gummadi,
K.
P.,
Druschel,
P.,
&
Bhattacharjee,
B.
(2007).
Measurement
and
analysis
of
online
social
networks.
In
Proceedings
of
the
7th
ACM
SIGCOMM
Conference
on
internet
Measurement
(San
Diego,
California,
USA,
October
24
-
26,
2007).
IMC
'07.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
29-‐42.
Mitchell,
E.S.
(1986).
Multiple
triangulation:
A
methodology
for
nursing
science.
Advances
in
Nursing
Science,
8
(3),
18-‐25.
Mitchell,
K.
J.,
Finkelhor,
D.,
&
Wolak,
J.
(2001).
Risk
factors
for
and
impact
of
online
sexual
solicitation
of
youth.
Journal
of
the
American
Medical
Association,
285(23),
3011-‐3014.
Mitchell,
K.
J.,
Finkelhor,
D.,
&
Wolak,
J.
(2003).
The
exposure
of
youth
to
unwanted
157
sexual
material
on
the
Internet:
A
national
survey
of
risk,
impact,
and
prevention.
Youth
and
Society,
34(3),
330-‐358.
Mitchell,
K.
J.,
Finkelhor,
D.,
&
Wolak,
J.
(2004).
Victimization
of
youths
on
the
Internet.
Journal
of
Aggression,
Maltreatment
and
Trauma,
1-‐39.
Monberg,
J.
(2005).
Trajectories
of
computer-‐mediated
communication
research.
Southern
Communication
Journal,
70,
181-‐186.
Moreland,
R.
L.
&
Levine,
J.M.
Socialization
in
small
groups:
Temporal
changes
in
individual-‐group
relations.
Advances
in
Experimental
Social
Psychology,
15.
137-‐
192.
Moscardelli,
D.
M.,
&
Divine,
R.
(2007).
Adolescents’
concern
for
privacy
when
using
the
Internet:
An
empirical
analysis
of
predictors
and
relationships
with
privacy-‐
protecting
behaviors.
Family
and
Consumer
Sciences
Research
Journal,
35(3),
232-‐
252.
Murthy,
D.
(2008).
Digital
ethnography:
An
examination
of
the
use
of
new
technologies
for
social
research.
Sociology
2008,
42;
837-‐855.
Nardi,
B.
A.
(2005).
Beyond
bandwidth:
Dimensions
of
connection
in
interpersonal
communication.
Computer
Supported
Coop
Work,
1(4),
91-‐130.
Nazir,
A.,
Raza,
S.,
&
Chuah,
C.
(2008).
Unveiling
Facebook:
a
measurement
study
of
social
network
based
applications.
In
Proceedings
of
the
8th
ACM
SIGCOMM
Conference
on
internet
Measurement
(Vouliagmeni,
Greece,
October
20
-‐
22,
2008).
IMC
'08.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
43-‐56.
Newkirk,
C.D.,
&
Viehauser,
A.L..
(December
2008).
The
ConnectU
and
Facebook
dispute:
has
the
final
chapter
been
written?
Intellectual
Property
&
Technology
Law
Journal,
20(12):1-‐7.
Nie.
N.
H.
(2001).
Sociability,
interpersonal
relations
and
the
Internet:
Reconciling
conflicting
findings.
American
Behavioral
Scientist,
45,
420-‐435.
Nyland,
R.,
Marvez,
R.
&
Beck.,
J.
(2007).
MySpace:
social
networking
or
social
isolation?
Presented
at
Association
for
Education
in
Journalism
and
Mass
Communication.
O’Murchu,
I.,
Breslin,
J.G.,
&
Decker,
S.
(2004).
Online
social
and
business
networking
communities.
DERI
Technical
Report,
1-‐22.
Palen,
L.,
&
Dourish,
P.
(2003).
Unpacking
“privacy”
for
a
networked
world.
Proceeedings
of
SIGCHI
conference
on
Human
factors
in
computing
systems,
CHI’03.
Papacharissi,
Z.
(2009).
The
virtual
geographies
of
social
networks:
a
comparative
analysis
of
Facebook,
LinkedIn
and
ASmallWorld.
New
Media
Society,
11.
199-‐220.
158
Punamaki,
R-‐L.,
Wallenius,
M.,
Hygard,
C-‐H.,
Saarni,
L.,
&
Rimpela,
A.
(
2007).
Use
of
information
and
communication
technology
(ICT)
and
perceived
health
in
adolesence:
The
role
of
sleeping
habits
and
waking-‐time
tiredness.
Journal
of
Adolescence,
30,
569-‐585.
Ray,
W.J.
(2006).
Methods
toward
a
science
of
behavior
and
experience.
Australia:
Thomson
Wadsworth.
Reips,
U-‐D.
(2002).
Context
effects
in
web
surveys.
Online
social
sciences.
Seattle,
WA:
Hogrefe
and
Huber.
Rheingold,
H.
(2000).
The
virtual
community:
Homesteading
on
the
electronic
frontier.
2nd
edition.
New
York:
Addison.
Rossi,
P.
&
Whyte,
W.
F.
(1983).The
applied
side
of
sociology.
In
Freeman,
HE,
Dynes,
RR.,
Rossi,
PH.,
and
Whyte,
WF
(eds),
Applied
Sociology
SF:
Jossey-‐Bass
Publishers.
Ryberg,
T.,
&
Christiansen,
E.
(2008).
Community
and
social
network
sites
as
Technology
Enhanced
Learning
Environments.
Technology,
Pedagogy
and
Education,
17(3),207-‐219.
Schiller,
S.
Z.
&
Mandviawalla,
M.
(2007).
Virtual
team
research:
An
analysis
of
theory
use
and
a
framework
for
theory
appropriation.
Small
Group
Research
38(1),
12-‐59.
Schuman,
H.
(1992).
Context
effects:
State
of
the
past/state
of
the
art.
Context
effects
in
social
and
psychological
research.
New
York:
Springer-‐Verlag.
Schuman,
H.,
&
Presser,
S.
(1981).
Question
and
answers
in
attitude
surveys,
experiments
on
question
form,
wording,
and
context.
New
York:
Academic
Press.
Schwarz,
N.,
&
Bless,
H.
(1992).
Scandals
and
public
trust
in
politicians:
Assimilation
and
contrast
effects.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
bulletin,
18,
574-‐579.
Schwarz,
N.
&
Glore,
G.
L.
(1983).
Mood,
misattribution,
and
judgements
of
well-‐being:
informative
and
directive
functions
of
affective
states.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
45,
513-‐523.
Schutz,
A.,
&
Machilek,
F.
(2003).
Who
owns
a
personal
home
page?
A
discussion
of
sampling
problems
and
a
strategy
based
on
a
search
engine.
Swiss
journal
of
psychology,
62(2),
121-‐129.
Seale,
C.,
Gobo,
G.,
Gubrium,
J.F.
&
Silverman,
D.
(eds).
(2004).
Qualitative
Research
Practice,
London:
Sage.
Selfhout,
M.
H.W.,
Branje,
S.J.T.,
Delsing,
M.,
ter
Bogt,
T.F.M,
&
Meeus,
W.H.J.
(2008).
Different
types
of
Internet
use,
depression,
and
social
anxiety:
The
role
of
perceived
friendship
quality.
Journal
of
Adolescence,
1-‐15.
159
Silverman,
D.
(1993).
Interpreting
qualitative
data:
methods
for
analysing
talk,
text
and
interaction.
London:
Sage.
Sithigh,
D.M.
(2008).
The
mass
age
of
internet
law.
Informations
and
Communications
Technology
Law.
17(2),
79-‐94.
Smith,
H.W.
(1975).
Strategies
of
Social
Research:
The
Methodological
Imagination.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-‐Hall.
Snyder,
J.
&
Slauson,
G,
J.
(2006).
MySpace.com
–
A
social
networking
site
and
social
contract
theory.
EDSIG,
23.
1-‐9.
Synder,
J.,
Carpenter,
D.,
&
Saluson,
G.J.
(2007).
MySpace.com
–
A
social
networking
site
and
social
contract
theory.
Information
Systems
Education
Journal,
5(2).
Sohier,
R.
(1988).
Multiple
triangulation
and
contemporary
nursing
research.
Western
Journal
of
Nursing
Research,
10
(6),
732-‐742.
Stafford,
R.
(2006).
Why
parents
must
mind
MySpace.
Retrieved
August
12,
2009,
from
http://
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11064451/
Stern,
M.
J.,
&
Dillman,
D.
A.
(2006).
Community
participation,
social
ties,
and
use
of
the
Internet.
City
and
Commnunity,
5(4),
407-‐424.
Stern,
L.
&
Taylor,
K.
(2007)
Social
networking
on
Facebook.
Journal
of
the
Communication,
Speech
&
Theatre
Association
of
North
Dakota,
30,
9-‐20.
Stern,
S.
(2008).
Producing
sites,
exploring
identities:
Youth
online
authorship.
Youth,
Identity
and
Digital
media,
95-‐118.
Strak,
F.
(1992).
'Order
effects'
in
survey
research:
activation
and
information
functions
of
preceding
questions.
Context
effects
of
in
social
and
psychology
research.
New
York:
Springer-‐Verlag.
Strater,
K.,
&
Richter,
H..
(2007).
Examining
privacy
and
disclosure
in
a
social
networking
community.
Symposium
On
Usable
Privacy
and
Security
(SOUPS)
2007,
July
18-20,
2007,
Pittsburgh,
PA,
USA.
Stutzman,
F.
(2005).
Student
life
on
facebook.
Unpublished
manuscript.
Retrieved
February
24,
2008
from
http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2005/10/freshman-‐
facebook-‐zeitgeist.html
Stutzman,
F.
(2006)
An
evaluation
of
identity-‐sharing
behavior
in
social
network
communities.
Journal
of
the
International
Digital
Media
and
Arts
Association,
3(1),
10-‐18.
Sundén,
J.
(2003)
Material
Virtualities:
Approaching
Online
Textual
Embodiment.
New
York:Peter
Lang.
160
Suhr,
H.C.
(2009).
Underpinning
the
paradoxes
in
the
artistic
fields
of
MySpace:
the
problematization
of
values
and
popularity
in
convergence
culture.
New
Media
Society,
11,
179-‐198.
Sullivan,
M.
(November,
2008).
“Facebook
effect”
mobilizes
youth
vote.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.thelantern.com/2.1345/facebook-‐effect-‐mobilizes-‐youth-‐vote-‐
1.73572
Tapscott,
D.
(1998).
Growing
up
digital:
The
rise
of
the
Net
generation.
New
York:
McGraw-‐Hill.
Tavani,
H.T.
(1999).
Privacy
and
the
Internet.
In
R.A.
Spinello
(Ed.),
Proceedings
of
the
Fourth
Annual
Conference
on
Ethics
and
Technology
(pp.
114–125).
Chestnut
Hill,
MA:
Boston
College
Press.
Taylor,
H.
(2003).
Most
people
are
‘privacy
pragmatists’
who,
while
concerned
about
privacy,
will
sometimes
trade
it
off
for
other
benefits.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=365
Thomas,
A.
(2007).
Youth
online:
identity
and
literacy
in
the
digital
age.
NY:
Peter
Lang.
Tosh,
D.,
&
Weldmuller,
B..
(2004).
Creation
of
a
learning
landscape:
weblogging
and
social
networking
in
the
context
of
e-portfolios.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.eradc.org/papers
Tourangeau,
R.
(1992).
Context
effects
on
responses
to
attitude
questions:
attitudes
as
memory
structures.
Contact
effects
in
social
and
psychology
research.
New
York:
Springer-‐Verlag.
Tourangeau,
R.,
Couper,
M.,
&
Conrad,
F.
(2004).
Spacing,
position
and
order:
Interpretive
heuristics
for
visual
features
of
survey
questions.
Public
Opinion
Quarterly,
68(3),
368-‐393.
Tourganeau,
R.,
&
Rasinki,
K.A.
(1988).
Cognitive
processes
underlying
context
effects
in
attitude
management.
Psychological
Bulletin,
103,
299-‐314.
Tourangeau,
R.,
Rips.,
L.
J.,
&
Raskinki,
K.
A.
(2000).
The
psychology
of
survey
response.
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Tourangeau,
R.,
&
Smith,
T.W.
(1996).
Asking
sensitive
questions:
The
impact
of
date
collection
mode,
question
format
and
question
context.
Public
Opinion
Quarterly,
60,
275-‐304.
Trusov,
M.,
Bucklin
R.E.,
&
Pauwels,
K.
(2007).
Estimating
the
Dynamic
Effects
of
Online
Word-‐Of-‐Mouth
of
member
growth
of
a
social
networking
site.
Working
paper,
Robert
H.
Smith
school
of
business,
University
of
Maryland.
161
Trusov,
M.,
Bucklin,
R.
E.,
&
Pauwels,
K.H..
(2008).
Effects
of
word-‐of-‐mouth
versus
traditional
marketing:
findings
from
an
internet
social
networking
site.
Robert
H.
Smith
School
Research
Paper
No.
RHS
06-‐065.
Tufecki,
Z.
(2008).
Can
you
see
me
now?
Audience
and
disclosure
regulation
in
online
social
networking
sites.
Bulletin
of
Science
Technology
Society,
28(1),
20-36.
Turchi,
J.
A.
(2007).
Homophily
and
online
networks:
young
adult
relationships
in
myspace.
Master's
thesis,
Clemson
University,
Clemson,
SC.
Turkle,
S.
(1995).
Life
on
screen:
Identity
in
the
age
of
the
Internet.
New
York
:
Simon
&
Schuster.
Tynes,
B.M.
(2007)
Internet
safety
gone
wild?
Sacrificing
the
education
and
psychosocial
benefits
of
online
social
environments.
Journal
of
Adolescence
research,
22(6),
575
-‐584.
Ulrich,
J.
M.,
&
Harris,
A.
L.
(Eds.).
(2003).
GenXegesis:
Essays
on
alternative
youth
(sub)culture.
Madison:
The
University
of
Wisconsin
Press/Popular
Press.
Valenzuela,
S.,
Park.,
N.
&
Kee,
K.F.
(2008).
Lessons
from
Facebook:
The
effect
of
social
network
sites
on
college
students’
social
capital.
Submitted
to
International
Symposium
on
Online
Journalism.
Valkenburg,
P.M,
Peter,
J.,
&
Schouten,
A.P.
(2006).
Friend
networking
sites
and
their
relationship
to
adolescents'
well-‐being
and
social
self-‐esteem.
CyberPsychology
&
Behavior,
9(5):
584-‐590.
Vie,
S
(2007).
Engaging
others
in
online
social
networking
sites:
rhetorical
practices
in
MySpace
and
Facebook
.
University
of
Arizona.
Villar,
E.,
Juan,
E.
C,
&
Capell,
D.
(2000).
What
kind
of
networking
strategy
advice
should
career
counselors
offer
university
graduates
searching
for
a
job?
British
Journal
of
Guidance
&
Counseling,
28,
299-‐405.
Wark,
M.
(1993).
Planet
of
noise:
So
who
are
generation
X
and
why
are
they
saying
these
terrible
things
about
us?
Juice,
74-‐78.
Walther,
J.
B.
(1994).
Anticipated
ongoing
interactions
versus
channel
effects
on
relational
communication
in
computer-‐mediated
interaction.
Human
Communication
Research,
20(4),
473-‐501.
Walther,
J.
B.,
Van
Der
Heide,
B.,
Kim,
S.
Y.,
Westerman,
D.,
&
Tong,
S.
T.
(2008).
The
role
of
friends’
appearance
and
behavior
on
evaluations
of
individuals
on
Facebook:
Are
we
know
by
the
company
we
keep?
Human
Communication
Research,
34(1),
28-‐49.
Walther,
J.B.,
Van
Der
Heide,
B.,
Hamel,
L.M.,
&
Shulman,
H.C.
(2009).
Self-‐generated
versus
other-‐generated
statements
and
impressions
in
computer-‐mediated
162
communication:
A
test
of
warranting
theory
using
Facebook.
Communication
Research,
36(2):
229-‐253.
Wallace,
P.
(1999).
The
Psychology
of
the
Internet.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Watts,
D.
(2003).
Six
Degrees:
The
science
of
a
connected
age.
W.W.Norton
&
Company.
Weber,
S.,
and
Mitchell,
C.
(2008).
Imaging,
Keyboarding,
and
Posting
Identities:
Young
People
and
New
Media
Technologies.
In:
Buckingham,
D.
(Ed.)
(2008).
Youth,
Identity,
And
Digital
Media.
(pp.
25-‐47)
Cambridge:
The
MIT
press.
Webb,
E.J.,
Campbell,
D.T.,
Schwartz,
R.D.,
Sechrest,
L.,
&
Grove,
J.
B.
(1981).
Nonreactive
measures
in
the
social
sciences.
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin.
Weinberg,
H.
(2002).
Community
unconscious
on
the
Internet.
Group
Analysis,
35
(1).
Weisband,
S.,
&
Kiesler,
S.
(1986).
Self-‐disclosure
on
computer
forms:
Meta-‐analysis
and
implications.
Proceedings
of
CHI86.
Wells,
M.,
&
Mitchell,
K.J.
(2008).
How
do
high-‐risk
youth
use
the
Internet?
Characteristics
and
implications
for
prevention.
Children
Maltreatment,
13(3),
227-‐234.
Wellman,
B.,
Salaff,
J.,
Dimitrova,
D.,
Garton,
L.,
Gulia,
M.,
&
Haythornthwaite,
C.
(1996).
Computer
networks
as
social
networks:
Collaborative
work,
telework,
and
virtual
community.
Annual
Review
of
Sociology.
Wellman,
B.
Which
kinds
of
ties
and
networks
give
what
kinds
of
social
support?
Advances
in
Group
Processes,
9.
207-‐235.
Wellman,
B.,
Hase,
A.
Q.,
Witte,
J.
&
Hampton,
K.
(2001).
Does
the
Internet
increase,
decrease,
or
supplement
social
capital?:
Social
networks,
participation,
and
community
commitment.
American
Behavioral
Scientist
45:
436-‐455.
Wenger,
E.
&
Snyder,
W.
(2000).
Communities
of
practice,
the
organizational
frontier.
Harvard
Business
Review.
January-‐February,
139-‐145.
Westin,
A.
(1967).
Privacy
and
freedom.
New
York:
Atheneum.
Willard,
N.E.
(2007).
The
“MySpace
Phenomenon”.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.galeschools.com/article_archive/2006/03/myspace.htm
Wilson,
M.
&
Nicholas,
C.
(2008).
Topological
analysis
of
an
online
social
network
for
older
adults.
In
Proceeding
of
the
2008
ACM
Workshop
on
Search
in
Social
Media
(Napa
Valley,
California,
USA,
October
30
-
30,
2008).
SSM
'08.
ACM,
New
York,
NY,
51-‐58.
Wimmer,
R.
D.
&
Dominick,
J.
R.
(2000).
Mass
media
research:
An
introduction.
Chapter
8.
Survey
research
(p.
160-‐199).
New
York:
Wadsworth.
163
Windahl,
S.,
Hojerback,
I.,
&
Hedinsson,
E.
(1986).
Adolescents
without
television:
A
study
in
media
deprivation.
Journal
of
Broadcasting
&
Electronic
Media,
30,
47–63.
Wolak,
J.,
Mitchell,
K.,
&
Finkelhor,
D.
(2002).
Close
online
relationships
in
a
national
sample
of
adolescents.
Journal
of
Adolescence,
(37)
147,
442-‐455.
Wolak,
J.,
Mitchell,
K.,
&
Finkelhor,
D.
(2003).
Escaping
or
connecting?
Characteristics
of
youths
who
form
close
online
relationships.
Journal
of
Adolescence,
26,
105-‐119.
Wolak,
J.,
Mitchell,
K.,
&
Finkelhor,
D.
(2004).
Victimization
of
youths
on
the
Internet.
Journal
of
Aggression,
Maltreatment
and
Trauma,
8(1),
1-‐39.
Wolak,
J.,
Mitchell,
K.,
&
Finkelhor,
D.
(2005):
Does
online
harassment
constitute
bullying?
An
exploration
of
online
harassment
by
known
peers
and
online-‐only
contacts.
Journal
of
Adolescent
Health,
41(6),
51-‐58.
Wolak,
J.,
Mitchell,
K.,
&
Finkelhor,
D.
(2006).
Online
victimization
of
youths:
Five
years
later.
Report
from
Crimes
Against
Children
Research
Center,
University
of
New
Hampshire.
Wong,
T.
(2007).
Parents
may
get
help
to
understand
new
media
soon.
The
Straits
Times,
20
November
2007.
Yabarra,
M.
L.,
&
Mitchell,
K.
J.
(2004).
Online
aggressor/targets,
aggressors,
and
targets:
a
comparison
of
associated
youth
characteristics.
Journal
of
Child
Psychology
and
Psychiatry,
45(7),
1308-‐1316.
Yabarra,
M.
L.,
&
Mitchell,
K.
J.
(2004).
Youth
engaging
in
online
harassment:
associations
with
giver-‐child
relationships,
Internet
use,
and
personal
characteristics.
Journal
of
Adolescence,
319-‐336.
Yabarra,
M.
L.,
&
Mitchell,
K.
J.
(2005).
Exposure
to
Internet
pornography
among
children
and
adolescents:
A
national
survey.
Cyberpsychology
and
behavior,
8(5),
473-‐486.
Yabarra,
M.
L.,
&
Mitchell,
K.
J.
(2008).
How
risky
are
social
networking
sites?
A
comparison
of
palces
online
where
youth
sexual
solicitation
and
harassment
occurs.
Official
journal
of
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics,
350-‐357.
Young,
A.
L.,
&
Quan-‐Hasse,
A.
(2009).
Information
revelation
and
internet
privacy
concerns
on
social
network
sites:
a
case
study
of
Facebook.
Proceedings
of
the
fourth
international
conference
on
Communities
and
technologies,
C&T’09.
164
Appendices
Annotated
diagrams
for
Facebook
features
Figure
1:
News
Feed
feature
on
Facebook
165
D
A
E
B
C
F
Figure
2:
Facebook
profile
A:
Profile
picture
with
links
to
the
number
of
pictures
and
videos
of
user
below
the
picture
B:
Personal
information
(location,
birthday,
relationship
status,
etc.)
C:
Friends
list:
Number
of
friends
user
is
linked
to
D:
User
status:
can
be
updated
frequently,
friends
of
user
can
comment
on
the
user
status
E:
Recent
activity
of
user:
Latest
addition
of
a
new
friend
to
friend
list,
commenting
on
another
friend’s
status
or
link,
etc.
F:
Public
comments
and
messages
posted
on
the
“Wall”
of
the
user
166
A
D
B
C
Figure
3:
Features
of
News
Feed
A:
Quizzes
taken
by
friends
created
by
their
friends
B:
Friends’
status
and
their
friends’
comments
on
their
status.
A
“Like”
option
can
be
selected
to
indicate
support
for
the
statuses.
C:
Events
which
the
user
is
attending
(only
for
the
user’s
view).
Other
events
such
as
friends’
upcoming
birthdays
are
also
published
here.
D:
Highlights
section:
Links,
pictures
and
videos
which
friends
in
the
Friend’s
list
have
uploaded.
167
Fig.
4
IDA
Annual
Survey
on
Infocomm
Usage
in
Households
and
by
individuals
for
2006
Retrived
online
on
29
February
2008
http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070823161317.aspx
168
[...]... hopes to bridge the gap, by understanding the knowledge about SNS parents and their children, as well as how youths portray themselves online, if they are savvy enough to protect themselves online and how youths utilize SNS settings to protect their personal information and their level of information disclosure in SNS 12 This research... youths and SNS Chapter Four rounds up the literature review by compiling a coherent theoretical framework for privacy and information disclosure Based on existing scholarship, the concept of privacy is examined in the context of social network theory Information disclosure is also drawn into the discussion and privacy. .. discussion and privacy literature on parents and youths are discussed, including on-‐going debates on youths and online privacy The chapter concludes with research questions that seek to understand how youths portray themselves online as well as their perceptions of online privacy vis a vis their parents’ Chapter ... different disciplines and fields, from technology to the social sciences and they involve issues such as online privacy and identity formation Therefore the literature review for SNS also reflect the multi-‐disciplinary nature of SNS, from social sciences to computer science to marketing and privacy and surveillance... between youths’ and parents’ perceptions of the risk of personal information disclosure vis a vis Facebook? For the rest of Chapter One, context for this study is set by providing background information on the basic features of SNS, how SNS became a worldwide phenomenon and in particular, the rise of Facebook and how Facebook... for the online surveys Chapter Seven provides analyses of the data collected from the online surveys to first establish youths’ as well as their parents’ perception of offline and online privacy Following that, findings from the surveys shall be utilized to demonstrate if there exist any disparities on online privacy perceptions... once the information is online, it may be subject to misinterpretation Through their SNS profiles, youths can express certain aspects of their identity for their peers to see and interpret They construct their profiles for their friends and peers to view and because there is a link between their online and offline... and for children to rein their enthusiasm and to use the technology responsibly 2.2.1 Online sexual solicitations Many studies have been conducted on youth and online sexual solicitations, as this is a real online danger that is faced by youths, who may not be equipped emotionally to deal with predators online. .. the following questions: RQ1: Do Singaporean youths adopt privacy safeguards in Facebook? RQ2: What is the extent and nature of information disclosure by Singapore youths in SNS? RQ3: To what extent are Singaporean parents aware of the nature of personal information disclosure by their teenage children in Facebook? RQ4:... argues that generations are socially and culturally defined and produced Different generations will have different tastes, orientations, beliefs and dispositions, which led to the invention and use of a category like “Generation X” (and its subsequent mutations), reflecting both the importance and complexity of age –based distinctions ... theory, privacy and information disclosure 44 4.1 Concept of privacy 44 4.2 Social network theory and privacy 47 4.3 Online information disclosure and. .. privacy 48 4.4 SNS and privacy 51 4.4.1 SNS privacy policies and settings 53 4.5 Parents and online privacy 54 4.6 Youths and online. .. close to and whom we may not want to share such personal information with 4.3 Online information disclosure and privacy An area of concern for parents and educators
Ngày đăng: 06/10/2015, 20:43
Xem thêm: Online privacy and personal information disclosure, Online privacy and personal information disclosure
